Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6661 CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURTS, For recusal/bias, For Bivens Action/Prejudices, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:13-cv-02387-JFA) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6661 CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURTS, For recusal/bias, For Bivens Action/Prejudices, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:13-cv-02387-JFA) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6661 CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURTS, For recusal/bias, For Bivens Action/Prejudices, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:13-cv-02387-JFA) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin Lyndale Gaddy appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his civil 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. Gaddy v. S.C. Dist. Courts, No. 8:13-cv-02387-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2014; Apr. 28, 2014). 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
