Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07726/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07726-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7726

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CPT MYECHA MILEY,

 Defendant – Appellee,

and

WILLIAM R. BYARS; JOHN R. PATE; ARTHUR A. JORDAN; MCKENNDLY 

NEWTON; ROBERT E. WARD; JON OZMINT; DENNIS PATTERSON; 

DANIEL MURPHY; DAVID M. TATARSKY; LT J. CARUJO; LT J. 

CARTER; ROBERT ORR; LT JAMES RUMP; CAPTAIN E. J. MILLER; 

DR. THOMAS BYNSE; LT VARLEASE BLACK; CPL L. JENKINS; M. 

HUDSON; S. SINGLATON, DHO; CPL T. SIMPSON; MR. MCQUEEN; P. 

SMITH; A. HOLLMAN; HELEN FREEMAN; THOMAS SCOTT; CPT E. 

JAMES; TANYA A. GEE; V. CLAIRE ALLEN; JOHN C. FEW; WAYNE C. 

MCCABE; JILL BEATTIE; JEANNETTE MACK; FRANCINE BAUCHMAN; 

PATTY BRITT POSEY; JAMES S. SLIGH, JR.; DR. ROWLAND; 

GREGORY S. LINE; CHARLOTTE SMITH; ELLEN GOODWIN; RUSSELL 

RUSH; JIM CROSBY; SUSAN BARDEN; VIRGINIA CROCKER; PAM 

SMITH; LAKETA DIKA; DEBORAH B. DURDEN,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(6:13-cv-03516-TMC)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Appeal: 15-7726 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Freeman, Sr., 

GRIFFITH, SHARP & LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7726 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Henry W. Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous 

order denying relief on Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Martin v. Miley, No. 6:13-cv-03516-TMC (D.S.C. 

Oct. 8, 2015). 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: 15-7726 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3