The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-7282•William T. Coleman v. 16th Circuit Court
13-7282Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 4, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7282
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
16TH CIRCUIT COURT; YORK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE;
MELISSA INZERILLO, others may be amended; JESSICA HOLLAND;
LEE ALFRED, 16th Circuit Court Judge; 16TH CIRCUIT
SOLICITORS OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:12-cv-01927-JFA)
Submitted: January 27, 2014 Decided: February 4, 2014
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William T. Coleman appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. We conclude, as did magistrate judge and the
district court, that Coleman’s Section 1983 claims are barred by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994). We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.