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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6282 DARRELL J. MICKELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6282 DARRELL J. MICKELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STIRLING; C. REYNOLDS; MR.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, Circu..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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