Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sterling L. Singleton v. Patricia Brown, 17-6475 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-6475 Visitors: 28
Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6475 STERLING L. SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICIA BROWN, Lieutenant, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:15-cv-02723-JMC) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 15, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sterling L. Singleton, Appella
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6475


STERLING L. SINGLETON,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

PATRICIA BROWN, Lieutenant,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:15-cv-02723-JMC)


Submitted: March 13, 2018                                         Decided: March 15, 2018


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Michael Balthazor, Roy F. Laney, RILEY,
POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Sterling L. Singleton appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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. Singleton v. Brown,

No. 9:15-cv-02723-JMC (D. S.C., Mar. 10, 2017). We deny Singleton’s motion for

appointment of counsel.    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