Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sturkey v. Ozmint, 08-8198 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-8198 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 15, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8198 WILLIE JOE STURKEY, a/k/a Willie Sturkey, a/k/a Willie J. Sturkey, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN MCKIE, Kirkland Correctional Center; WARDEN RILEY, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MAJOR LATTA, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT BATES, Tyger River Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT BALL, Kirkland Correctional Institution; R. L. TURNER, Tyger River Correctional Institut
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8198 WILLIE JOE STURKEY, a/k/a Willie Sturkey, a/k/a Willie J. Sturkey, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN MCKIE, Kirkland Correctional Center; WARDEN RILEY, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MAJOR LATTA, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT BATES, Tyger River Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT BALL, Kirkland Correctional Institution; R. L. TURNER, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MIKE FOWLER, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MS. MIDDLEBROOK, Tyger River Correctional Institution, in their official and individual capacity, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03296-MBS) Submitted: May 26, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Joe Sturkey, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Willie Joe Sturkey appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sturkey v. Ozmint, No. 8:07-cv-03296-MBS (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2008). 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