Filed: Sep. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6693 ERNEST EUGENS PICKETT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. MARVIN BROWN; MR. SCOTTIE THOMPSON; HON. MS. E. JOINER; MR. GARY C. LEMEL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00496-RMG) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6693 ERNEST EUGENS PICKETT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. MARVIN BROWN; MR. SCOTTIE THOMPSON; HON. MS. E. JOINER; MR. GARY C. LEMEL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00496-RMG) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6693 ERNEST EUGENS PICKETT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. MARVIN BROWN; MR. SCOTTIE THOMPSON; HON. MS. E. JOINER; MR. GARY C. LEMEL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:13-cv-00496-RMG) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Eugens Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ernest Eugens Pickett appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Pickett’s 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. Pickett v. Brown, No. 4:13-cv-00496-RMG (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 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
