Michael Braxton v. Joette Scarborough

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 22-6638
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6638

MICHAEL T. BRAXTON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOETTE D. SCARBOROUGH, South Carolina Department of Corrections Central Class Director; A. BOYD; C. YORK; DONNIE STONEBREAKER; MS. HENDRIX; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL STOBBE; LETTIE JACOBS; MRS./MS. BAKER; MRS./MS. PRICE; TERESA S. PLAYER; GEORGE M. DUCWORTH; GERALD BLACK; DON A. THOMPSON; MRS./MS. FREEMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-01106-HMH)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael T. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Michael T. Braxton appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Braxton v. Scarborough, No. 8:22-cv-

01106-HMH (D.S.C. May 17, 2022). In addition, we note that numerous claims are raised

by Braxton for the first time on appeal. We decline to consider these claims. See Muth v.

United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time

on appeal generally will not be considered, absent exceptional circumstances of plain error

or fundamental miscarriage of justice); First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil,

Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time

on appeal). 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