Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7156 JAMES A. GILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR ALLAN WALLS; DOCTOR EILLEN DELANEY; DOCTOR ROBERT POILETMAN; MRS. AMY ENLOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:10-cv-00959-DCN) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7156 JAMES A. GILES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR ALLAN WALLS; DOCTOR EILLEN DELANEY; DOCTOR ROBERT POILETMAN; MRS. AMY ENLOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:10-cv-00959-DCN) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7156
JAMES A. GILES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOCTOR ALLAN WALLS; DOCTOR EILLEN DELANEY; DOCTOR ROBERT
POILETMAN; MRS. AMY ENLOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:10-cv-00959-DCN)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,
MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James A. Giles appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and the court’s
order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Giles v. Walls, No. 0:10-cv-00959-DCN
(D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011; Aug. 17, 2011; Aug. 24, 2011). We deny
Giles’ motion to appoint 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