Case Name: Antoine J. CHINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lt. MARSKBERRY; Major Nettles; Warden Fred B. Thompson; William R. Byars, Jr., Director, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-30
Citations: 627 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 14-7674
Parties: Antoine J. CHINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lt. MARSKBERRY; Major Nettles; Warden Fred B. Thompson; William R. Byars, Jr., Director, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
Antoine J. CHINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lt. MARSKBERRY; Major Nettles; Warden Fred B. Thompson; William R. Byars, Jr., Director, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7674.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 30, 2015.
Antoine J. China, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, Gordon Wade Cooper, Buyck, Sanders & Simmons, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine J. China appeals from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action. He challenges that ruling and the magistrate judge's rulings denying his motions to appoint counsel, to compel, and for a default judgment. Appellees move to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We further conclude that the notice of appeal was timely filed. Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and the magistrate judge. China v. Lt. Marskberry, No. 5:13-cv-00091-JMC, 2014 WL 4402806 (D.S.C. Apr. 11, Sept. 9 & Oct. 3, 2013; Sept. 4, 2014). We deny China's motion to appoint counsel and 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.