Ronald I. Paul v. South Carolina Department of Transportation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2146
RONALD I. PAUL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PAUL D. DE
HOLCZER, individually and as a partner of the law firm of
Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; G. L. BUCKLES, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Keith J. Buckles and G. L.
Buckles individually personal representative Keith J.
Buckles; MICHAEL H. QUINN, Individually and as senior lawyer
of Quinn Law Firm, LLC; J. CHARLES ORMOND, JR., individually
and as partner of the Law Firm of Holler, Dennis, Corbett,
Ormond, Plante & Garner; OSCAR K. RUCKER, in his individual
capacity as Director, Rights of Way South Carolina
Department of Transportation; MACIE M. GRESHAM, in her
individual capacity as Eastern Region Right of Way Program
Manager South Carolina Department of Transportation; NATALIE
J. MOORE, in her individual capacity as Assistant Chief
Counsel, South Carolina Department of Transportation; LIENE
A. BUCKLES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of G.L.
Buckles individually and Liene A. Buckles individually;
REGINALD I. LLOYD, in his individual capacity as Circuit
Court Judge, Richland County Court of Common Pleas 5th
Circuit,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-01852-CMC)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald I. Paul, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ronald I. Paul appeals the district court’s orders adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice, and denying his
motion to reconsider and amend. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Paul v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:13-cv-
01852-CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 8 & 22, 2014). We deny Paul’s motion for
summary reversal. 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 of 3 --