Case ID: f-appx_521/html/0200-01.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

Bradley R. MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen L. PURCELL; Jennifer Gee; United States Department of Labor; John Doe(s); Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2; Jane Doe 3; Jane Doe 4; Jane Doe 5, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-1045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2013.
    Decided: May 28, 2013.
    Bradley R. Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Berlinsky, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bradley R. Marshall appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and dismissing Marshall’s action under the Administrative Procedures Act and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marshall v. Purcell, No. 2:12-cv-00084-RMG (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2012; Jan. 2, 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.