UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8116
DION ORLANDO TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. MICHAEL LANG, in individual and official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MAJOR EICHELBERGER; WARDEN LEVERN COHEN; LT. S. LOWERY; M.
E. MONTOUTH, Grievance Coordinator, all in individual and
official capacities,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:10-cv-02327-HMH)
Submitted: May 24, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dion Orlando Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. Bendle,
William T. Young, III, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Dion Orlando Taylor, a South Carolina state prisoner,
appeals from a jury verdict in favor of prison guard Michael
Lang on Taylor’s claim that Lang subjected him to an excessive
use of force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Taylor also
moves for the preparation of a transcript at the government’s
expense. We deny the motion and affirm.
Considering Taylor’s challenge to several of the
district court’s evidentiary rulings, we find that Taylor has
not plausibly suggested an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 351 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v.
Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 309 (4th Cir. 2008).
Further, assuming that the district court dismissed
Taylor’s official-capacity claim against Lang, we find that such
a disposition was clearly appropriate because Taylor failed to
allege or otherwise establish facts suggesting his entitlement
to injunctive relief. Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka, 669
F.3d 194, 201-02 (4th Cir. 2012); Revene v. Charles Cnty.
Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1989).
Finally, there is no support in the record for
Taylor’s speculation that the district court failed to record
the pre-trial evidentiary hearing. See Wyatt v. United States,
591 F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 1979) (general presumption of
regularity attends all judicial acts). Even assuming such an
3
omission occurred, Taylor has not established resulting
prejudice sufficient to warrant a new trial. United States v.
Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 696 (4th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, we conclude that Taylor has not made the
showing necessary to justify the preparation of a transcript at
government expense, deny his motion for such, and affirm the
jury’s verdict. 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
4