Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Roderick English v. Doctor Pacote, 14-6687 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-6687 Visitors: 71
Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6687 RODERICK JEROME ENGLISH, Plaintiff – Appellant, DOCTOR PACOTE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-02856-JFA) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick Jerome En
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6687


RODERICK JEROME ENGLISH,

                       Plaintiff – Appellant,

DOCTOR PACOTE,

                       Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02856-JFA)


Submitted:   July 24, 2014                   Decided:    July 29, 2014


Before FLOYD and    THACKER,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roderick Jerome English, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Roderick Jerome English appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.                     We

have     reviewed   the     record   and     find    no   reversible     error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court.     English v. Pacote, No. 1:13-cv-02856-JFA (D.S.C. Apr. 1,

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

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