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)
18-6275•Samuel Anthony Wilder v. Tarcia L. James, in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick Correctional…
18-6275Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 23, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6275
SAMUEL ANTHONY WILDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TARCIA L. JAMES, in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick
Correctional Institution; KELLIE L. BREWER, in her individual capacity as
Nurse at McCormick Correctional Institution; ASIA FEW, in her individual
capacity as Correctional Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (2:16-cv-01457-CMC)
Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Anthony Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD,
PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Anthony Wilder appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Wilder filed these
motions for relief in his proceedings on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, which the
court dismissed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilder v. James, No. 2:16-cv-
01457-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2018; Jan. 31, 2018; Feb. 6, 2018; Mar. 19, 2018). 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.