Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7163 JAMES ANTHONY PRIMUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING, SCDC Director; TIFFANY N. RICHARDSON, ODC, Defendants – Appellees, and MR. WILLIAM BYARS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (4:13-cv-00768-JFA) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7163 JAMES ANTHONY PRIMUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING, SCDC Director; TIFFANY N. RICHARDSON, ODC, Defendants – Appellees, and MR. WILLIAM BYARS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (4:13-cv-00768-JFA) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7163
JAMES ANTHONY PRIMUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN STIRLING, SCDC Director; TIFFANY N. RICHARDSON, ODC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
MR. WILLIAM BYARS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (4:13-cv-00768-JFA)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Anthony Primus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Anthony Primus appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny
Primus’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Primus v. Stirling, No.
4:13-cv-00768-JFA (D.S.C. July 29, 2014). 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