Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. Gintoli, 04-6497 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6497 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6497 DANNY G. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE P. GINTOLI, Director of South Carolina Department of Mental Health (SCDMH); W. RUSSELL HUGHES, Doctor and CEO of the Behavior Disorders Treatment Program (BDTP); BRENDA E. YOUNG-RICE, Program Manager for BDTP; ELIZABETH HALL, Division Director of Public Safety; DOUG COCHRAN, JD, Director of Client Advocacy; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendants -
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6497 DANNY G. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE P. GINTOLI, Director of South Carolina Department of Mental Health (SCDMH); W. RUSSELL HUGHES, Doctor and CEO of the Behavior Disorders Treatment Program (BDTP); BRENDA E. YOUNG-RICE, Program Manager for BDTP; ELIZABETH HALL, Division Director of Public Safety; DOUG COCHRAN, JD, Director of Client Advocacy; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendants - Appellees, --------------------------------------------- LEONARD A. SMITH, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-1102-9-24) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny G. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, Sheally Venus Poe, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Danny G. Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Gintoli, No. CA-03-1102-9-24 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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