Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6512 COURTNEY LYLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STERLING; MICHAEL MCCALL; LEWIS; FLORENCE MAUNEY; STEPHEN CLAYTOR; DEGEORGES, Captain; BENNETT; SWINGER; VALERO; TUCKER; MITCHELL; OFFICER EDGERTON; ROBINSON, Coach; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MISKINIS, Corporal; ROBERT OLSEN; TASHONDA CALDWELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6512 COURTNEY LYLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRYAN STERLING; MICHAEL MCCALL; LEWIS; FLORENCE MAUNEY; STEPHEN CLAYTOR; DEGEORGES, Captain; BENNETT; SWINGER; VALERO; TUCKER; MITCHELL; OFFICER EDGERTON; ROBINSON, Coach; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MISKINIS, Corporal; ROBERT OLSEN; TASHONDA CALDWELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Curr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6512
COURTNEY LYLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN STERLING; MICHAEL MCCALL; LEWIS; FLORENCE MAUNEY;
STEPHEN CLAYTOR; DEGEORGES, Captain; BENNETT; SWINGER;
VALERO; TUCKER; MITCHELL; OFFICER EDGERTON; ROBINSON,
Coach; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; MISKINIS, Corporal; ROBERT OLSEN;
TASHONDA CALDWELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (9:17-cv-00149-CMC)
Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 21, 2018
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Courtney Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE
& MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Lyles appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge in part 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. Lyles v. Sterling, No. 9:17-cv-00149-CMC (D.S.C.
Apr. 11, 2018). 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