Ronald I. Paul v. Paul D. De Holczer, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2059
RONALD I. PAUL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAUL D. DE HOLCZER, individually and as a partner of the law
firm of Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; 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,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-02178-CMC)
Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 4, 2016
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint* and the
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Paul v. de Holczer, No. 3:15-cv-02178-CMC (D.S.C. July
28, 2015 & Sept. 2, 2015). 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
* We conclude we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-25
(4th Cir. 2015) (providing standard).

-- 3 of 3 --