Zerell McClurkin v. Bill Byer, No. 13-7506 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7506 ZERELL MCCLURKIN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BILL BYER, Commissioner SCDC; WARDEN SERGEANT LAWLESS; SERGEANT COTTER, LARRY CARLEDGE; Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (2:13-cv-01507-RMG) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zerell McClurkin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Zerell McClurkin appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, with respect to the issues raised on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * 2:13-cv-01507-RMG (D.S.C. July 15, 2013). McClurkin v. Byer, No. 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 * McClurkin failed to pursue nearly all issues raised below and instead focused on the district court s and magistrate judge s finding that he should seek a remedy under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. Therefore, the issues not pursued on appeal are waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present specific arguments in an informal brief and stating that this court s review is limited to the issues raised in the informal brief). See also Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments raised in the brief in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that appellate assertions not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). 2

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.