Clarence Small v. Warden Willie L. Eagleton
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:16-cv-02553-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Clarence Small BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 4460 Broad River Road Columbia, SC 29210-0000. [17-6761]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
WARDEN WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Official Capacity; OFFICER BRADSHER;
OFFICER SHAW, all sued in their individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:16-cv-02553-HMH)
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: October 20, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Small, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN,
PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Clarence Small appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees in Small’s
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
Small’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014). Although we conclude that Small’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
report were sufficient to preserve appellate review, see Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239,
245-46 (4th Cir. 2017), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Small v.
Eagleton, No. 2:16-cv-02553-HMH (D.S.C. May 31, 2017). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?