George Cleveland, III v. Larry Cartledge, No. 16-6891 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6891 GEORGE CLEVELAND, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER I. MAYES, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER M. JONES, in their official and individual capacity; WARDEN (UNKNOWN NAME), in their official and individual capacity; LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER TYRELL ADMORE, in their official and individual capacity; CONTRABAND LT. CHARLES HARTZOG, in their official and individual capacity; BUSINESS EMPLOYEE T. WAY, in their official and individual capacity; MACDOUGALL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, in their official and individual capacity; OFFICER FRANCINE BACHMAN, in their official and individual capacity; DIRECTOR BRYAN STIRLING, of the SCDC, in their official and individual capacity; UNKNOWN NAMES OF THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE SCDC, in their official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cv-04512-RBH) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Cleveland, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: George Cleveland, III, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the We have Accordingly, district court. Cleveland v. Cartledge, No. 4:15-cv-04512-RBH (D.S.C. May 23, 2016). legal before 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.
