Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07581/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07581-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7581

ROBERT MILLER LATTIMORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL A. GARRETT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03146-F)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Miller Lattimore, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7581 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Miller Lattimore appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Following a 

bench trial, this court may reverse a district court’s factual 

findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Roanoke Cement Co. v. 

Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district 

court’s factual finding in a bench trial is based upon assessments 

of witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest 

degree of appellate deference.” Evergreen Int’l, S.A. v. Norfolk 

Dredging Co., 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court’s 

factual findings, made based on its assessement of the credibility 

of the witnesses, are not clearly erroneous, we affirm those 

findings and the judgment in favor of the defendant.

Accordingly, we deny Lattimore’s motions for appointment of 

counsel and to review the transcript, and his motion to show the 

North Carolina Department of Public Safety violated the sexual 

violence elimination policy. We affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before 

this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-7581 Doc: 21 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 2