Henley v. Atkinson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2009
• Docket: 08-8335
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8335

WILLIAM ARTHUR HENLEY, a/k/a William Henley, a/k/a William H. Henley, formerly #247392 and #178816,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GERALD ATKINSON, Officer of Richland County Sheriff Department sued in individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, Magistrate Judge. (8:06-cv-02420-BHH)

Submitted: May 29, 2009 Decided: June 16, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Arthur Henley, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Robert David Garfield, Joel Steve Hughes, Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

William Arthur Henley appeals the district court’s *

orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action,

pursuant to the jury’s verdict. Henley has not provided a

transcript, and he fails to establish a basis to have a

transcript prepared at government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)

(2006). We have reviewed the existing record and the issues

Henley raises on appeal, and find no grounds for appellate

relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See

Henley v. Atkinson, No. 8:06-cv-02420-BHH (D.S.C. filed Oct. 1,

2008 & entered Oct. 2, 2008). We deny Henley’s motions for a

transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel

and 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

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).