Thomas Moyler, Jr. v. D. Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2023
• Docket: 21-6939
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6939 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6939

THOMAS MOYLER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER D. WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

KISER, Warden; SERGEANT J. R. MASSINGILL; D. BALL; J. B. MESSER, Grievance Coordinator; INVESTIGATOR FANNIN; UNIT MANAGER DUNCAN, A-Building; HAROLD CLARKE; SCARBERRY, Food Staff Supervisor; DAVID A. ROBINSON; LINDA SHEAR; MELISSA WELCH,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:19-cv-00262-RSB)

Submitted: November 18, 2022 Decided: February 2, 2023

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6939 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Thomas Moyler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6939 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/02/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Moyler, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s judgment in favor of Nathaniel

Williams after a bench trial on Moyler’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim. *

“Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and

its legal conclusions de novo.” Wards Corner Beauty Acad. v. Nat’l Accrediting Comm’n

of Career Arts & Scis., 922 F.3d 568, 573 (4th Cir. 2019). We have reviewed the magistrate

judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge at the close of the

bench trial conducted on June 8, 2021. Moyler v. Williams, No. 7:19-cv-00262-RSB (W.D.

Va. June 14, 2021). 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

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.