Filed: Apr. 17, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7709 MARCUS ANTONIO FRIERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. M. BRADY, LPN; C. DIXON, LPN; EDWARD L. STAHL, JR., Estate of Dr. Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Estate of Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Unknown heirs of Dr. Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:09-cv-01314-MGL) Submitted: March 14, 2013 Decided: Apri
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7709 MARCUS ANTONIO FRIERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. M. BRADY, LPN; C. DIXON, LPN; EDWARD L. STAHL, JR., Estate of Dr. Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Estate of Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Unknown heirs of Dr. Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:09-cv-01314-MGL) Submitted: March 14, 2013 Decided: April..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7709 MARCUS ANTONIO FRIERSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. M. BRADY, LPN; C. DIXON, LPN; EDWARD L. STAHL, JR., Estate of Dr. Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Estate of Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Unknown heirs of Dr. Edward L. Stahl, Jr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:09-cv-01314-MGL) Submitted: March 14, 2013 Decided: April 17, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Antonio Frierson, Appellant Pro Se. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Antonio Frierson appeals the district court’s judgment entered for the Defendants following a jury trial on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, Frierson’s motion for production of transcripts is denied, and we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
