Court Opinion

ID: 9889214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 21:00:50.533022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:01.939536
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6509      Doc: 14         Filed: 10/05/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6509

        JOHN MCKINNEY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director SCDC; TERRE K. MARSHALL, Deputy Director
        SCDC/Health; CECELIA REYNOLDS, Warden Lee Correctional Institution;
        APRIL CLARK, SCDC Medical Director; STOKES, Lee Correctional Institution
        RN; BURNETT, Lee Correctional Institution RN; BLAKE, Lee Correctional
        Institution RN; ANDERSON, Lee Correctional Institution RN; DR. NEVILLE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (8:21-cv-03683-CMC)

        Submitted: September 25, 2023                                     Decided: October 5, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John McKinney, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6509     Doc: 14         Filed: 10/05/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              John McKinney appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge and dismissing McKinney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28

        U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McKinney v. Stirling, No. 8:21-cv-

        03683-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 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