Michael Ferola v. Officer Fulton ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7212
    MICHAEL J. FEROLA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    OFFICER FULTON,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR.; GREGORY KNOWLIN; KENNETH SHARP;
    WILLIE   EAGLETON;   MARIA   LEGGINS;   JERRY  ADGER;  MRS
    BRACKENBERRY; ANN HALLMAN; CAPTAIN ROGERS; LT POWELL; LT
    BRAYBOY; LT WHEELER; CPL MILLER; CPL CONYERS; MICHAEL
    BOWERS; MAJOR    WEST; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SELLERS; ASSOCIATE
    WARDEN MCFADDEN; MS GRAVES, IGC, Evans,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (9:13-cv-02413-RBH)
    Submitted:   January 31, 2017                 Decided:   February 3, 2017
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael J. Ferola, Appellant Pro Se.        Lisa Arlene Thomas,
    THOMPSON & HENRY, PA, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael J. Ferola filed a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012) action
    asserting claims of denial of access to the courts and failure
    to protect.     The district court accepted in part the magistrate
    judge’s     recommendation          and     granted        summary      judgment     to
    defendants     on    Ferola’s      access       to   the   courts      claims.      The
    surviving    failure    to    protect       claim     against    Defendant       Fulton
    proceeded to trial and the jury ruled in Fulton’s favor.                         Ferola
    appeals the denial of relief on his claims.                      We have reviewed
    the   record   and    find    no    reversible        error.        Accordingly,     we
    affirm.     Ferola v. Fulton, No. 9:13-cv-02413-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 3,
    2015 & Aug. 23, 2016).             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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7212

Filed Date: 2/3/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/3/2017