Paul v. South Carolina Department of Transportations , 691 F. App'x 731 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1057
RONALD I. PAUL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS; 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; 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; J. CHARLES ORMOND, JR., individually and as partner of the
Law Firm of Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-01727-CMC)
Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint, and imposing a prefiling injunction against him. Paul also appeals the court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error in either order. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Paul v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:16-cv-01727-
CMC (D.S.C. Nov. 8, 2016 & Jan. 11, 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
3