Filed: Sep. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6553 RAYSHAWN KALIF PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD TURNER; BILL BYARS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:12-cv-01747-TMC) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6553 RAYSHAWN KALIF PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD TURNER; BILL BYARS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:12-cv-01747-TMC) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6553 RAYSHAWN KALIF PEARSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD TURNER; BILL BYARS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:12-cv-01747-TMC) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayshawn Kalif Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Ross Culbreath, Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rayshawn Kalif Pearson 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. Pearson v. Turner, No. 9:12-cv-01747-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2013). 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
