Case ID: f-appx_709/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Leon BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain CANNING; Sergeant Fisher; Captain Nance; Major Tucker; Sergeant Burrison; David M. Tatarsky, Defendants-Appellees, and Lieutenant Gilbreath; Corporal Houser, Defendants.
    No. 17-7382
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 18, 2018
    Decided: January 23, 2018
    William Leon Burnett, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Leon Burnett appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of certain Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Burnett v. Canning, No. 9:16-cv-02742-MGL, 2017 WL 3484483 (D.S.C. Aug. 14 & Sept. 7, 2017); see also Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (discussing appointment of counsel in civil actions), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). We deny Burnett’s motion for counsel. 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