Julio Hunsberger v. Randy Duran, No. 19-7201 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7201 JULIO A. HUNSBERGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RANDY BOBBY DURAN, sued in individual capacity official capacity; MARVIN ENGLISH, sued in individual capacity official capacity; ROGER LOWE, sued in individual capacity official capacity; RICK HUBBARD, sued in individual capacity official capacity; ALTON EARGLE, sued in individual capacity official capacity; ERVIN MAYE, sued in individual capacity official capacity; FRANK YOUNG, sued in individual capacity official capacity; DONALD MYERS, sued in individual capacity official capacity; ALAN WILSON, sued in individual capacity official capacity; JOHN MCINTOSH, sued in individual capacity official capacity; DONALD ZELENKA, sued in individual capacity official capacity; MELODY JANE BROWN, sued in individual capacity official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:18-cv-01813-TMC) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julio A. Hunsberger, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley, PAULEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Julio A. Hunsberger appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hunsberger v. Duran, No. 8:18-cv-01813-TMC (D.S.C. July 23, 2019). We deny Hunsberger’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 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.
