Court Opinion

ID: 9396895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:46.893883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.647291
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7257      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7257

        MICHAEL LOUIS HEPSTALL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:20-cv-00877-JD)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Louis Hepstall, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7257         Doc: 12      Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Louis Hepstall appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant summary judgment on Hepstall’s claims under

        the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80. We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

        Hepstall v. United States, No. 8:20-cv-00877-JD (D.S.C. filed Aug. 22, 2022 & entered

        Aug. 23, 2022). 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

                                                     2