William Leon Burnett v. Captain Canning, No. 17-7382 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7382 WILLIAM LEON BURNETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN CANNING; SERGEANT FISHER; CAPTAIN NANCE; MAJOR TUCKER; SERGEANT BURRISON; DAVID M. TATARSKY, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEUTENANT GILBREATH; CORPORAL HOUSER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:16-cv-02742-MGL) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Leon Burnett, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Leon Burnett appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of certain Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Burnett v. Canning, No. 9:16-cv-02742-MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 14 & Sept. 7, 2017); see also Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (discussing appointment of counsel in civil actions), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). We deny Burnett’s motion for counsel. 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 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.