Belton v. Bamberg

Fourth Circuit

Belton v. Bamberg

507 F. App'x 314

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 2013

DocketNo. 12-7732

StatusPublished

This text of 507 F. App'x 314 (Belton v. Bamberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belton v. Bamberg, 507 F. App'x 314 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Lee Belton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil rights action alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center. Belton has also moved for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Belton’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s amended judgment. Belton v. Bamberg, No. 1:11-cv-02301-MBS, 2012 WL 4050813 (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2012). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Lee Belton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil rights action alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center. Belton has also moved for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Belton’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s amended judgment. Belton v. Bamberg, No. 1:11-cv-02301-MBS, 2012 WL 4050813 (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2012). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 F. App'x 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belton-v-bamberg-ca4-2013.