Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kollyns v. Hughes, 07-7272 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7272 Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7272 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JONATHAN C. FRANCIS; JAMES B. PRICE, Plaintiffs, versus RUSSELL HUGHES, DR.; BRENDA E. YOUNG-RICE; FRED PAUER; REVEREND SMITH; LIEUTENANT ABNEY; THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, for injunctive relief; DOCTOR CHAVEZ, in their personal capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Colum
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7272 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JONATHAN C. FRANCIS; JAMES B. PRICE, Plaintiffs, versus RUSSELL HUGHES, DR.; BRENDA E. YOUNG-RICE; FRED PAUER; REVEREND SMITH; LIEUTENANT ABNEY; THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, for injunctive relief; DOCTOR CHAVEZ, in their personal capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cv-00090-JFA) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Appellant Pro Se. Ginger Dee Goforth, Andrew Todd Darwin, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Kris Sarayn Kollyns appeals the district court’s judgment adopting in part the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations, granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Kollyns v. Hughes, No. 3:05-cv-00090-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2006; Aug. 16, 2007). 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