Filed: Apr. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-8030 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BRIAN P. STIRLING; D. EASTRIDGE; OTHERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:15-cv-02670-DCN) Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-8030 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BRIAN P. STIRLING; D. EASTRIDGE; OTHERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:15-cv-02670-DCN) Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-8030
JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BRIAN P. STIRLING; D. EASTRIDGE; OTHERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-02670-DCN)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Roosevelt Baccus appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without
prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Baccus v. Stirling, No. 9:15-cv-02670-DCN
(D.S.C. filed Dec. 9, 2015; entered Dec. 10, 2015). We deny all
of Baccus’s pending motions, including his motions for bail, to
file an amicus curiae brief, to compel the production of
videotapes, for a transcript at government expense, for
disposition of informal briefing, and for judicial notice of his
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