Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6626 DENNIS GALLIPEAU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LINDA MICKENS-HAM, Defendant – Appellee, and JANE DOE; LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER MACK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (3:09-cv-01883-TMC) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6626 DENNIS GALLIPEAU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LINDA MICKENS-HAM, Defendant – Appellee, and JANE DOE; LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER MACK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (3:09-cv-01883-TMC) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6626
DENNIS GALLIPEAU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LINDA MICKENS-HAM,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JANE DOE; LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; OFFICER MACK,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(3:09-cv-01883-TMC)
Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Gallipeau, Appellant Pro Se. Justin Tyler Bagwell,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Gallipeau appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider a prior order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Gallipeau v. Mickens-Ham, No. 3:09-cv-01883-TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 9,
2014). We deny Gallipeau’s motion to place this case in
abeyance, and his motion to consolidate, and 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