Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James Brawner v. Leroy Cartledge, 13-6066 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6066 Visitors: 91
Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6066 JAMES RANDALL BRAWNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; STEVEN LEWIS; J. PARKER, sued in his individual capacity; FRANK MURSIER, sued in his individual capacity; HARRISON, sued in his individual capacity; JAMES SLIGH, sued in his individual capacity; DENNIS PATTERSON, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6066 JAMES RANDALL BRAWNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; STEVEN LEWIS; J. PARKER, sued in his individual capacity; FRANK MURSIER, sued in his individual capacity; HARRISON, sued in his individual capacity; JAMES SLIGH, sued in his individual capacity; DENNIS PATTERSON, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:12-cv-01889-RMG-KDW) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Randall Brawner, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Randall Brawner appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brawner v. Cartledge, No. 5:12-cv-01889-RMG-KDW (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 2012). 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