Ronald Paul v. Paul de Holczer

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Ronald Paul v. Paul de Holczer

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2059

RONALD I. PAUL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PAUL D. DE HOLCZER, individually and as a partner of the law firm of Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; MICHAEL H. QUINN, individually and as senior lawyer of Quinn Law Firm, LLC; J. CHARLES ORMOND, JR., individually and as partner of the Law Firm of Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner; OSCAR K. RUCKER, in his individual capacity as Director, Rights of Way South Carolina Department of Transportation; MACIE M. GRESHAM, in her individual capacity as Eastern Region Right of Way Program Manager South Carolina Department of Transportation; NATALIE J. MOORE, in her individual capacity as Assistant Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Transportation,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-02178-CMC)

Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 4, 2016

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald I. Paul, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Ronald I. Paul appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

without prejudice his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012) complaint * and the

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Paul v. de Holczer, No. 3:15-cv-02178-CMC (D.S.C. July

28, 2015 & Sept. 2, 2015). 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

*We conclude we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,

807 F.3d 619, 623-25

(4th Cir. 2015) (providing standard).

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished