UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2265
EMORY ALVIN MICHAU, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOAN W. WARDEN, Paralegal, Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office,
State of South Carolina, individually and officially; R.
WESTMORELAND CLARKSON, Asst Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, State of South Carolina, individually and
officially; DEBORAH RJ SHUPE, Asst Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General, State of South Carolina,
individually and officially; JOHN W. MCINTOSH, Asst Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General, State of South
Carolina, individually and officially; J. AL CANNON,
Charleston County Sherriff's Office, State of South
Carolina, individually and officially; PAMELA M. CRAWFORD,
MD, Department of Mental Health, State of South Carolina,
individually and officially; DANIEL T. STACEY, Attorney,
Office of Appellate Defense, State of South Carolina,
individually and officially; CLARON A. ROBERTSON, III,
Attorney; JOHN DOES, South Carolina Department of
Corrections individually and officially; JANE DOES,
individually and officially,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00286-RMG)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Thomas
Dorsel, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Robin
Lilley Jackson, Sandra Jane Senn, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK,
LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Daniel L. Prenner, PRENNER
MARVEL, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Michau v. Warden, No. 2:11-cv-00286-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 17,
2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3