Stanley Moultrie v. William Byars, Jr., No. 15-7358 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7358 STANLEY LEE MOULTRIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM BYARS, JR., South Carolina Department of Corrections Director; BRYAN P. STIRLING; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON; DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WARD; SCDC GENERAL COUNSEL DAYNE HAILE; CHRISTOPHER FLORIAN; ANN HALLMAN, Agency Grievance Coordinator; MARIA LEGGINS, Agency Mailroom Coordinator; WILLIE EAGLETON, Evan Warden; ASSOCIATE WARDEN MCFADDEN; MAJOR C. WEST; BETHEA LT. MICHAEL TOMS; MS. BAKER, Mailroom Coordinator; MS. GRAVES, ECI Grievance Coordinator; PAMELA MCDOWELL, Mailroom Supervisor; LT. JAMES MARTIN; SGT. H. SIMS; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BUSH, Lee CI; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NOLAN; ASSOCIATE WARDEN DEAN; K. RIVERS, Lee CI Grievance Coordinator; JIMMY SLEIGH; DEPUTY WARDEN; LT. JACK BROWN; MS. CONYERS, Lee CI Officer; GENERAL COUNSEL TATARSKY; DEPUTY DIRECTOR MCCALL; AMY SMITH; D. EASTRIDGE; FELICIA MCQUEEN; SANDRA BOWIE; DEPUTY WARDEN DAVIS; CAPTAIN THOMAS; MS. WILSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:14-cv-01690-DCN) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, February 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lee Moultrie, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stanley adopting Lee the Moultrie magistrate appeals the judge’s district recommendation relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. confine our brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). brief does not disposition, court’s before to the challenge Moultrie order. judgment. legal review has issues the raised in and order denying On appeal, we the appellant’s Because Moultrie’s informal basis for forfeited Accordingly, court’s we the district appellate affirm the review district court’s of the court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.