Court Opinion

ID: 9404399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:38.45283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.578365
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6084      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6084

        DARRELL L. GOSS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRIAN KENDELL; ALBERT L. MACK; TRAVIS GUESS; MR. ALLEN;
        C. HOLMES; SHONDA ROBINSON; LARRY TURNER,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00949-MGL)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Darrell L. Goss, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN LEGAL, LLC,
        Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6084     Doc: 22         Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Darrell L. Goss appeals the district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting in

        part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting summary judgment to Defendants,

        and dismissing his civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its order denying his

        motion brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(1). We have reviewed the record

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

        Goss v. Kendell, No. 2:20-cv-00949-MGL (D.S.C Mar. 23, 2022 & Jan. 11, 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

                                                   2