Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07798/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07798-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7798

MICHAEL ANTHONY PROZER, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(9:14-cv-01249-TMC)

Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 1, 2015

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Prozer, III, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier 

Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7798 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Prozer, III, appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012). We have 

reviewed the issues Prozer raises in his informal opening and 

supplemental briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.*

 

Prozer v. United States, No. 9:14-cv-01249-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 25, 

2014). We deny Prozer’s motion to stay his appeal and his 

motions for injunctive relief. 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

 * Prozer argues that the district court assessed his 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), citing one such 

reference on the judgment form. But the magistrate judge and 

the district court properly analyzed Prozer’s claims under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act. The error on the judgment form is

plainly a clerical one. 

Appeal: 14-7798 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 2