Filed: Apr. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7691 FRED FREEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN BAZZLE; MUHAAWAHA, Case Worker; OLSON; JOHN DOE, Medical Director; AMY ENLOE, Defendants -Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-04-22832) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7691 FRED FREEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN BAZZLE; MUHAAWAHA, Case Worker; OLSON; JOHN DOE, Medical Director; AMY ENLOE, Defendants -Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-04-22832) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before TR..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7691 FRED FREEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN BAZZLE; MUHAAWAHA, Case Worker; OLSON; JOHN DOE, Medical Director; AMY ENLOE, Defendants -Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-04-22832) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Fred Freeman 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 Freeman v. Ozmint, No. CA-04-22832 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2005). We deny Freeman’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 -