Case ID: f-appx_538/html/0333-01.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

John Dwayne GARVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY; James E. Hunter, 7th Circuit Solicitor’s Office; Scott D. Robinson, Attorney, Scott D Robinson Law Firm LLC; Major Neal Urch, Director of Jail Operation, Spartanburg County Detention Center; Chuck Wright, Warden of Jail, Spartanburg County Detention, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-6593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 22, 2013.
    Decided: Aug. 26, 2013.
    John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

John Dwayne Garvin appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Garvin v. Spartanburg Cnty., No. 7:13-cv-00454-DCN, 2013 WL 1404880 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 5 & entered Apr. 9, 2013). 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. 
      
       Garvin also challenges the district court’s post-judgment order denying as moot his motions requesting a bond hearing and for appointment of counsel. Garvin argues that he intended the bond hearing motion to be docketed in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2013) action, Garvin v. Wright, No. 2:13-cv-00442-DCN-BHH (D.S.C.), rather than in this § 1983 case. In fact, the motion was docketed separately in each case and is still pending before the district court in Gar-vin's § 2241 proceeding. To the extent that Garvin intended his motion for appointment of counsel to be filed in his § 1983 action, the district court properly denied the motion.