Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Darrell J. Mickell v. Bryan Stirling, 17-6282 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-6282 Visitors: 23
Filed: Oct. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6282 DARRELL J. MICKELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR. DAVIS; MR. SHARPE; MR. GRAHAM; MR. NOLAN; MR. WILLIAMS; MS. SHAW; MS. SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:15-cv-04656-RBH) Submitted: September 29, 2017 Decided: October 12, 2017 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circ
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6282


DARRELL J. MICKELL,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

BRYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR. DAVIS; MR. SHARPE; MR.
GRAHAM; MR. NOLAN; MR. WILLIAMS; MS. SHAW; MS. SMITH,

                    Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:15-cv-04656-RBH)


Submitted: September 29, 2017                                 Decided: October 12, 2017


Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell J. Mickell, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, LEE ERTER WILSON
HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Darrell J. Mickell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in

Mickell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and the magistrate judge’s orders denying his

motions to appoint counsel and to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Mickell v. Stirling, No. 6:15-cv-04656-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2015; Jan. 25, 2016; Sept.

13, 2016; Feb. 15, 2017). 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer