Filed: Nov. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6740 CORY ANTHONY SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER KAPELUCK; C. J. HOWELL, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-00021) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6740 CORY ANTHONY SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER KAPELUCK; C. J. HOWELL, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-00021) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6740
CORY ANTHONY SIMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER KAPELUCK; C. J. HOWELL, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-00021)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cory Anthony Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Deering
Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P., Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cory Anthony Simpson appeals the district court’s
order declining to accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to
prosecute, and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
on the merits of the action. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Simpson v. Kapeluck, No.
2:09-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va. May 14, 2010). We further deny
Simpson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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