Michael Breyan v. Cynthia Ruth, No. 17-6703 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6703 MICHAEL A. BREYAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CYNTHIA RUTH; LT STORY; CAPTAIN AW BRADSHAW; AW KENNETH SHARP; WARDEN GREGORY T KNOWLIN, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-6704 MICHAEL A. BREYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LT EDDY ALL; LT HARRY; AW MAJOR BERRY; WARDEN L CARTHEDGE; CAPTAIN, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-6705 MICHAEL A. BREYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER POINDEXTER; WILLIAM CLINE; ANDREW ROCKEFELLA; SHEIK JOHNSON; WARREN STREETY; SGT FLOYD; ROBERT VELEQUEZ; AW KNOWLIN; WARDEN, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-6706 MICHAEL A. BREYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLASSIFICATION, regarding jail credits, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00110-BHH-MGB; 2:17-cv00111-BHH-MGB; 2:17-cv-00210-BHH-MGB; 2:17-cv-00664-BHH-MGB) Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 19, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Michael Breyan challenges the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaints without prejudice for failure to comply with multiple court orders directing him to file his complaints on the proper provided forms. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Having determined that these orders are final and appealable, see Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Breyan v. Ruth, No. 2:17cv-00110-BHH-MGB (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2017); Breyan v. All; No. 2:17-cv-00111-BHHMGB (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2017); Breyan v. Poindexter, No. 2:17-cv-00210-BHH-MGB (D.S.C. Apr. 10, 2017); Breyan v. Classification, No. 2:17-cv-00664-BHH-MGB (D.S.C. Apr. 13, 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 4
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.
