Ronald I. PAUL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Paul D. De Holczer, individually and as a partner of the law firm of Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; G.L. Buckles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles individually personal representative Keith J. Buckles; Michael H. Quinn, Individually and as senior lawyer of Quinn Law Firm, LLC; J. Charles Ormond, Jr., individually and as partner of the Law Firm of Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner; Oscar K. Rucker, in his individual capacity as Director, Rights of Way South Carolina Department of Transportation; Macie M. Gresham, in her individual capacity as Eastern Region Right of Way Program Manager South Carolina Department of Transportation; Natalie J. Moore, in her individual capacity as Assistant Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Transportation; Liene A. Buckles, as Personal Representative of the Estate of G.L. Buckles individually and Liene A. Buckles individually; Reginald I. Lloyd, in his individual capacity as Circuit Court Judge, Richland County Court of Common Pleas 5th Circuit, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2015-04-08No. No. 14-2146

599 F. App'x 108

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald I. Paul appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice, and denying his motion to reconsider and amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Paul v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:13-cv01852-CMC, 2014 WL 5025815 (D.S.C. Oct. 8 & 22, 2014). We deny Paul’s motion for summary reversal. 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.