Matthew Heath v. College of Charleston, No. 17-2427 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2427 MATTHEW HEATH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON; GLENN F. MCCONNELL, President of the College of Charleston; MATT ROBERTS, Director of Athletics, both in their official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-01792-PMD-JDA) Submitted: July 31, 2018 Decided: August 17, 2018 Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan R. Holmes, Cheryl H. Ledbetter, Rebecca J. Wolfe, GIBBS & HOLMES, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eugene H. Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew Heath appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Heath’s motion. See Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is reviewable for abuse of discretion); Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (outlining standard for a preliminary injunction). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Heath v. College of Charleston, No. 2:17-cv-01792-PMD-JDA (D.S.C. Nov. 14, 2017). 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 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.