Court Opinion

ID: 9374767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:57.001385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.737912
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638     Doc: 9        Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                          UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-6638

        MICHAEL T. BRAXTON,

                           Plaintiff – Appellant,

                     v.

        JOETTE D. SCARBOROUGH, South Carolina Department of Corrections Central
        Class Director; A. BOYD; C. YORK; DONNIE STONEBREAKER; MS.
        HENDRIX; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of South Carolina Department of
        Corrections; MICHAEL STOBBE; LETTIE JACOBS; MRS./MS. BAKER;
        MRS./MS. PRICE; TERESA S. PLAYER; GEORGE M. DUCWORTH; GERALD
        BLACK; DON A. THOMPSON; MRS./MS. FREEMAN,

                    Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-01106-HMH)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael T. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638         Doc: 9       Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael T. Braxton appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Braxton v. Scarborough, No. 8:22-cv-

        01106-HMH (D.S.C. May 17, 2022). In addition, we note that numerous claims are raised

        by Braxton for the first time on appeal. We decline to consider these claims. See Muth v.

        United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time

        on appeal generally will not be considered, absent exceptional circumstances of plain error

        or fundamental miscarriage of justice); First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil,

        Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time

        on appeal). 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

                                                      3