Michael Breyan v. Cynthia Ruth ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6703
MICHAEL A. BREYAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CYNTHIA RUTH; LT STORY; CAPTAIN AW BRADSHAW; AW KENNETH
SHARP; WARDEN GREGORY T KNOWLIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 17-6704
MICHAEL A. BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LT EDDY ALL; LT HARRY; AW MAJOR BERRY; WARDEN L
CARTHEDGE; CAPTAIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 17-6705
MICHAEL A. BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER POINDEXTER; WILLIAM CLINE; ANDREW ROCKEFELLA;
SHEIK JOHNSON; WARREN STREETY; SGT FLOYD; ROBERT VELEQUEZ;
AW KNOWLIN; WARDEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 17-6706
MICHAEL A. BREYAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLASSIFICATION, regarding jail credits,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00110-BHH-MGB; 2:17-cv-
00111-BHH-MGB; 2:17-cv-00210-BHH-MGB; 2:17-cv-00664-BHH-MGB)
Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael Breyan challenges the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaints without prejudice for failure to
comply with multiple court orders directing him to file his complaints on the proper
provided forms. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Having determined that these orders are final
and appealable, see Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir.
2015), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Breyan v. Ruth, No. 2:17-
cv-00110-BHH-MGB (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2017); Breyan v. All; No. 2:17-cv-00111-BHH-
MGB (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2017); Breyan v. Poindexter, No. 2:17-cv-00210-BHH-MGB
(D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2017); Breyan v. Classification, No. 2:17-cv-00664-BHH-MGB (D.S.C.
Apr. 13, 2017). 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
4