Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McFadden v. Alwine, 05-7448 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-7448 Visitors: 30
Filed: Apr. 06, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7448 BERNARD MCFADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN ALWINE, SCDC Medical Board Director; JOHN A. DAVIS; LISA PARNELL, Head nurse Wateree Correctional Institution; CHARLETTE GRECO, Practitioner Wateree Correctional Institution, in their official, individual, or personal capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, Di
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7448 BERNARD MCFADDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN ALWINE, SCDC Medical Board Director; JOHN A. DAVIS; LISA PARNELL, Head nurse Wateree Correctional Institution; CHARLETTE GRECO, Practitioner Wateree Correctional Institution, in their official, individual, or personal capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-04-2421-3) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Lee, Benjamin Albert Baroody, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McFadden v. Allen, No. CA-04-2421-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 2005; Aug. 5, 2005). We deny as moot McFadden’s motion to compel the district court to file three affidavits, because the affidavits are included in the district court’s record as attachments to McFadden’s Motion in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 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