Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Pettiford, 08-6022 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6022 Visitors: 65
Filed: Apr. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6022 DEAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN M. PETTIFORD; LIEUTENANT SHAWNCE, Lieutenant SIS at FCI- Bennettsville; LIEUTENANT MILLER, Lieutenant at FCI- Bennettsville; DOCTOR RINCE, Doctor and Head Psychologist at FCI-Bennettsville; D. BOWENS, Captain at FCI-Bennettsville; DOCTOR BARROUS, Medical Director and FCI-Bennettsville, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6022 DEAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN M. PETTIFORD; LIEUTENANT SHAWNCE, Lieutenant SIS at FCI- Bennettsville; LIEUTENANT MILLER, Lieutenant at FCI- Bennettsville; DOCTOR RINCE, Doctor and Head Psychologist at FCI-Bennettsville; D. BOWENS, Captain at FCI-Bennettsville; DOCTOR BARROUS, Medical Director and FCI-Bennettsville, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (9:07-cv-00946-RBH) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Dean 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 grant Williams’ motion to withdraw his requests for injunctive relief and restraining orders, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Pettiford, No. 9:07-cv-00946-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 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