Larry James Tyler v. Sheriff Wayne Byrd

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to file informal brief [1000173204-2] Originating case number: 9:16-cv-01275-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000177499]. Mailed to: Larry James Tyler DARLINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 2349 Rogers Road Darlington, SC 29532-0000. [17-6810]

Appeal: 17-6810

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6810

LARRY JAMES TYLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF WAYNE BYRD, Darlington Detention Center; CAPTAIN COE;
DIANN WILKES,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:16-cv-01275-MGL)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry James Tyler, DARLINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Darlington,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Samuel F. Arthur, III, James Rufus Bratton, III, AIKEN,
BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6810

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
The court granted Defendants Byrd and Coe’s motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the complaint as to Defendant Wilkes. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Tyler v. Byrd, No. 9:16-cv-01275-MGL (D.S.C. June 19, 2017).

We grant Tyler’s

motion to file a supplemental informal brief. 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.

AFFIRMED

2