Terron Dizzley v. Sergeant Pate
This text of Terron Dizzley v. Sergeant Pate (Terron Dizzley v. Sergeant Pate) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7270
TERRON GERHARD DIZZLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT PATE, female; Ms. GREEN, CBU Director; OFFICER JOHN K. BROWN, yard officer; OFFICER THORN, male; Ms. BROWN, Classification; OFFICER CLEVELAND, male; OFFICER MARTIN, male, Ms. JACKSON, classification; OFFICER NETHERTAN; OFFICER PARISH; OFFICER SMITH; WARDEN INABINET; REGIONAL DIRECTOR DAVIS; REGINALD L. WESTON; MIRACLE D. DAVENPORT; BRITTANY M. LIVINGSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:19-cv-02665-JD)
Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terron Gerhard Dizzley, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Terron Gerhard Dizzley appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Dizzley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm. Additionally, we deny Dizzley’s “Motion For Leave To Amend, Pursuant To
Newly-Discovered Evidence and Events,” and his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking
an order recusing the magistrate judge and disqualifying opposing counsel. See In re
Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding mandamus relief is a
drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances). 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Terron Dizzley v. Sergeant Pate, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terron-dizzley-v-sergeant-pate-ca4-2022.