William Alston v. Beth Lawson

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6835 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6835

WILLIAM JOSHUA ALSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BETH LAWSON, Medical Director; DR. GARMAN; SALLY BLAKE, Nurse Practitioner; ADRIANE SMALL, Nurse Practitioner; DANIELLE WINNS; RACHEL BROWN; KATRINA KRYSTONOWICZ; DANIELLE, Nurse; JAMIE WILSON, Nurse; MIKE; SHAWNETTE; K. JONES; KATRINA, Nurse; KELSEY LEDFORD, a/k/a Nurse Chelsea; SQUIRES, Nurse; KAREN JONES; CARRIE, Nurse; MELISSA, Nurse; CHELSEA, Nurse; NURSE PRACTITIONER ALEX; NURSE BRIELLE; DAVID SIEKLICKI, Nurse; NURSE CHASITY; SCHINITRA SWINNEY, Nurse Practitioner; JENNIFER, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (2:23-cv-03252-SAL)

Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026

Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Joshua Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Taylor Denslow Brewer, MORAN REEVES & CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Fulton Morrison, WHELAN MELLEN & USCA4 Appeal: 25-6835 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

NORRIS, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6835 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: William Joshua Alston appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting summary judgment to Defendants on Alston’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

Alston also moves to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief and to appoint counsel. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motion to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and affirm the district court’s order. Alston v. Lawson, No. 2:23-cv- 03252-SAL (D.S.C., Aug. 25, 2025). 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