Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

BRYAN v. OFC BUEHLER, 11-6539 (4th Cir. 10-5-2011)

T. TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a Terence Bryan, a/k/a Terence Terell Bryan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. TATARSKY; OFC BUEHLER; IGC COCCIOLONE; MR. NAJJAR; ASST WARDEN CLAYTOR; WARDEN McCALL; M. CAROLINA LINDSEY; JAMES SIMMONS, III, Defendants-Appellees, and SCDC; IGC, Defendants.

No. 11-6539.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: September 29, 2011.
Decided: October 5, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge (1:08-cv-03556-TLW).

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in unpublished per curiam opinion.

Page 2

T. Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Page 3

PER CURIAM:

T. Terell Bryan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bryan v.Tatarsky, No. 1:08-cv-03556-TLW (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2011). We also deny Bryan’s pending motion to produce. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Page 1

jdjungle