Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Supreme Ackbar v. William R. Byers, Jr., 18-6272 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-6272 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6272 SUPREME RAHEEM ACKBAR, a/k/a Ronald Gary, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM R. BYERS, JR., Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN; LIEUTENANT EUGENE SKIPPER; LIEUTENANT COOPER; SERGEANT WILSON, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SCDC; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolin
More
                                   UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                     No. 18-6272


SUPREME RAHEEM ACKBAR, a/k/a Ronald Gary,

                   Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

WILLIAM R. BYERS, JR., Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections; WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN; LIEUTENANT EUGENE
SKIPPER; LIEUTENANT COOPER; SERGEANT WILSON,

                   Defendants - Appellees,

             and

LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SCDC; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA,

                   Defendants.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:17-cv-01019-RMG)


Submitted: June 20, 2018                                    Decided: June 27, 2018


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Supreme Raheem Ackbar, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael DeAntonio, Christopher
Thomas Dorsel, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                            2
PER CURIAM:

      Supreme Raheem Ackbar appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss 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. Ackbar v.

Byers, No. 4:17-cv-01019-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 6, 2018). 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




                                            3

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