Filed: Mar. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6011 STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, a/k/a Steve, a/k/a Big Man, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROL G. THUEME, Court Reporter; COURT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:13-cv-02349-RMG) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6011 STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, a/k/a Steve, a/k/a Big Man, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROL G. THUEME, Court Reporter; COURT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:13-cv-02349-RMG) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6011
STEVEN LOUIS BARNES, a/k/a Steve, a/k/a Big Man,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROL G. THUEME, Court Reporter; COURT ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (5:13-cv-02349-RMG)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Louis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint 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. Thueme, No.
5:13-cv-02349-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 25 & Dec. 2, 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