U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2016

Ronald Paul v. Paul de Holczer

Ronald Paul v. Paul de Holczer
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 4, 2016

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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).

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