Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sutton v. Jones, 01-6351 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6351 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6351 EDWARD SUTTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIMMY JONES, Director of Kershaw County Deten- tion Center; DOCTOR’S CARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-289-6) Submitted: May 22, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6351 EDWARD SUTTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIMMY JONES, Director of Kershaw County Deten- tion Center; DOCTOR’S CARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-289-6) Submitted: May 22, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Sutton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James E. Parham, Jr., John Eric Fulda, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward Sutton, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magis- trate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sutton v. Jones, No. CA-00-289-6 (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2001; amended judgment filed Feb. 1, 2001; entered Feb. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer