Ronald Paul v. South Carolina Dep't of Transportation, No. 14-2146 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2146 RONALD I. PAUL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PAUL D. DE HOLCZER, individually and as a partner of the law firm of Moses, Koon & Brackett, PC; G. L. BUCKLES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith J. Buckles and G. L. Buckles individually personal representative Keith J. Buckles; 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; LIENE A. BUCKLES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of G.L. Buckles individually and Liene A. Buckles individually; REGINALD I. LLOYD, in his individual capacity as Circuit Court Judge, Richland County Court of Common Pleas 5th Circuit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-01852-CMC) Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald I. Paul, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald I. Paul appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice, and denying his motion to reconsider and amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, district court. we affirm for the summary reversal. and materials legal before stated by the Paul v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., No. 3:13-cv- 01852-CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 8 & 22, 2014). facts reasons We deny Paul’s motion for We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
