Court Opinion

ID: 9947013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:11.12075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.603798
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6358      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6358

        RICARDO FISHBURNE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; A/W ANNE
        SHEPPARD; WARDEN BRIAN KENDELL; A/W CLARK; DIRECTOR BRIAN
        STIRLING; SERGEANT HOWARD; CLASSIFICATION RAVENEL; SLED,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:21-cv-03542-TMC)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ricardo Fishburne, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN LAW FIRM,
        P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6358      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ricardo Fishburne appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in Fishburne’s 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 action, and a subsequent text order denying reconsideration. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        orders. ∗ Fishburne v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:21-cv-03542-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2023;

        Apr. 10, 2023). We grant Fishburne’s motion to supplement his informal opening brief.

        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

               ∗
                To the extent Fishburne appeals the denial of his motion for a restraining order,
        such denials are generally not appealable. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026,
        1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).

                                                     2