Filed: May 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7503 DARIAN ANTONIO COLEMAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ASSISTANT WARDEN RANDALL WILLIAMS, each defendant is being suited in their individual and official capacity all times herein; WARDEN JOHN PATE, each defendant is being suited in their individual and official capacity all times herein, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, Di
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7503 DARIAN ANTONIO COLEMAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ASSISTANT WARDEN RANDALL WILLIAMS, each defendant is being suited in their individual and official capacity all times herein; WARDEN JOHN PATE, each defendant is being suited in their individual and official capacity all times herein, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, Dis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7503
DARIAN ANTONIO COLEMAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ASSISTANT WARDEN RANDALL WILLIAMS, each defendant is being
suited in their individual and official capacity all times
herein; WARDEN JOHN PATE, each defendant is being suited in
their individual and official capacity all times herein,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-00748-DCN)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: May 17, 2016
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darian Antonio Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott,
SCOTT & PAYNE LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darian Antonio Coleman 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.
Coleman v. Williams, No. 8:14-cv-00748-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 10,
2015). 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