Court Opinion

ID: 9930928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:23.390456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:40.685705
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6912      Doc: 19        Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6912

        DAVID ANTONIO LITTLE, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CODY DIXON, Chesterfield County Sheriff; DAVID BROWN, Chesterfield
        County Sheriff,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        TYLER GOLDBACH, MD; JAMES DIXON, Sheriff,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:22-cv-03851-RMG)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                  Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6912      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        David Antonio Little, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON,
        WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6912         Doc: 19     Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              David Antonio Little, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the

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

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

        affirm the district court’s order. Little v. Dixon, No. 0:22-cv-03851-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 5,

        2023). 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