Small v. Eagleton

699 F. App'x 206
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 2017
DocketNo. 17-6761
StatusPublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 206 (Small v. Eagleton) 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
Small v. Eagleton, 699 F. App'x 206 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Small appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees in Small’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Small’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Although we conclude that Small’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report were sufficient to preserve appellate review, see Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245-46 (4th Cir. 2017), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Small v. Eagleton, No. 2:16-cv-02553-HMH, 2017 WL 2362385 (D.S.C. May 31, 2017). 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

Related

Samuel Jackson v. Joseph Lightsey
775 F.3d 170 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)
Anthony Martin v. Susan Duffy
858 F.3d 239 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 F. App'x 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-eagleton-ca4-2017.