Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chronister v. Metts, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Alan Dale Chronister's motions to appoint counsel, denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel and for reconsideration. Additionally, Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district court's rejection of his § 1983 claims in his appellate brief, and thus waived appellate review of that order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-10-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6553

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Alan Dale Chronister's motions to appoint counsel, denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel and for reconsideration. Additionally, Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district court's rejection of his § 1983 claims in his appellate brief, and thus waived appellate review of that order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    15 views2 pages

    Chronister v. Metts, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Alan Dale Chronister's motions to appoint counsel, denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint counsel and for reconsideration. Additionally, Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district court's rejection of his § 1983 claims in his appellate brief, and thus waived appellate review of that order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-6553

    ALAN DALE CHRONISTER,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES R.
    SERVICES,

    METTS,

    Sheriff;

    PRISON

    HEALTH
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge; Robert S. Carr, Magistrate Judge. (2:04-cv-22848-HMH)

    Submitted:

    September 27, 2006

    Decided:

    October 31, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alan Dale Chronister, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson,


    II, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina;
    Ashley S. Heslop, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston,
    South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alan Dale Chronister appeals the magistrate judges order
    denying

    Chronisters

    motion

    to

    appoint

    counsel,

    the

    district

    courts order accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and


    denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint, and the
    district courts order denying Chronisters motion filed under Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 59(e).

    We have reviewed the record and find that there

    was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motions to appoint


    counsel and for reconsideration.

    Accordingly, we affirm those

    orders for the reasons stated by the district court. Chronister v.


    Metts, No. 2:04-cv-22848-HMH (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2005; Mar. 28, 2006).
    Turning to the district courts order accepting the
    magistrate judges recommendation and denying 1983 relief, we
    note that Chronister failed to challenge the bases for the district
    courts rejection of his claims in his informal appellate brief.
    Thus, he has waived appellate review of that order.

    See 4th Cir.

    R. 34(b) (The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in
    the informal brief.).

    We deny Chronisters motion to appoint

    counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like