Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Haggins v. Burt, 08-6464 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6464 Visitors: 28
Filed: Nov. 10, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6464 TERRANCE T. HAGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BURT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; BOYD, Lieber Correctional Institution, in her individual capacity; DEBORAH ROWE, Lieber Correctional Institution, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, in her individual capacity; FRANKLIN E. JONES; FULLER, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; CHARLES RODGERS, Officer, Lie
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6464 TERRANCE T. HAGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BURT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; BOYD, Lieber Correctional Institution, in her individual capacity; DEBORAH ROWE, Lieber Correctional Institution, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, in her individual capacity; FRANKLIN E. JONES; FULLER, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; CHARLES RODGERS, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; JENKINS, Lieber Correctional Institution Grievance Coordinator, in her individual capacity; WILLIAMS, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:07-cv-00931-HMH) Submitted: June 11, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance T. Haggins, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Jacqueline Gottfried Grau, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Terrance T. Haggins, a South Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Haggins v. Burt, No. 4:07-cv-00931-HMH (D.S.C. March 12, 2008). We also deny Haggins’ 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 - 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