Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Steven Barnes v. Gregory Seigler, 13-7053 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-7053 Visitors: 36
Filed: Sep. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7053 STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GREGORY WILLIAM SEIGLER; LT. MARK HOWARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-01156-MBS) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7053 STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GREGORY WILLIAM SEIGLER; LT. MARK HOWARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-01156-MBS) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Louis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Louis Barnes appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Barnes’ claims against Appellee Gregory William Seigler and granting summary judgment on Barnes’ claims against Appellee Mark Howard in favor of Howard, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Seigler, No. 5:11-cv-01156-MBS (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2012; June 6, 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer