U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2013

Marshall v. Purcell

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 28, 2013 · Agee, Hamilton, Motz

521 F. App'x 200

Counsel

Bradley R. Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Berlinsky, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Ex Parte Ninth Judicial Circuit v. In re Bradley Rowland Marshall (S.C. 2019)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bradley R. Marshall appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and dismissing Marshall’s action under the Administrative Procedures Act and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no re*201versible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marshall v. Purcell, No. 2:12-cv-00084-RMG (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2012; Jan. 2, 2013). 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.