Filed: Dec. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7801 MICHAEL TYRONE PERRY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCDC; LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SERGEANT JIMMY WILLIAMS; WILLIAM A. BYERS, Director over SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:12-cv-01001-TLW) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Af
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7801 MICHAEL TYRONE PERRY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCDC; LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SERGEANT JIMMY WILLIAMS; WILLIAM A. BYERS, Director over SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:12-cv-01001-TLW) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Aff..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7801 MICHAEL TYRONE PERRY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCDC; LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SERGEANT JIMMY WILLIAMS; WILLIAM A. BYERS, Director over SCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:12-cv-01001-TLW) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Tyrone Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Tyrone Perry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Perry v. SCDC, No. 4:12-cv-01001-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 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
