Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07807/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07807-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7807

THERL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE AMASON, SCDC Mailroom Supervisor; MISHA MICHELLE, 

Mailroom Attendant; WAYNE THOMPSON, SCDC Lieutenant; A. 

SELLARS, SCDC Disciplinary Hearing Officer; D. SEWARD, SCDC 

Major; JEANNE MCKAY, SCDC Associate Warden; JANE DOES, 

Employee; JANE CHISUM, CO; JOHN EVRY, CO; CHRIS FLORIAN, 

SCDC Office of General Counsel Attorney; WILLIAM BYERS, SCDC 

Director,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JON DOES, Inmate; SCDC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-03449-RMG)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-7807 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Therl Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Thomas Lowndes 

Pope, Jayme Leigh Shy, Damon C. Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY,

LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7807 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Therl Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, its order denying his 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and the magistrate judge’s order 

denying as moot his discovery motion. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Amason, No. 

2:13-cv-03449-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2015; Oct. 14, 2015; Nov. 

18, 2014). 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

Appeal: 15-7807 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 3