Filed: Dec. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7579 KORELL BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARRYL KING; JAN PITTMAN; SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cv-02476-CMC) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Korell Battle,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7579 KORELL BATTLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARRYL KING; JAN PITTMAN; SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cv-02476-CMC) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Korell Battle, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7579
KORELL BATTLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DARRYL KING; JAN PITTMAN; SCDC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (2:12-cv-02476-CMC)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Korell Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Nikole D. Haltiwanger, Roy F.
Laney, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C.
Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Korell Battle appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Battle
v. King, No. 2:12-cv-02476-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2013). 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