Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Adams v. Thompson, 09-6114 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-6114 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6114 GEORGE ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. THOMPSON, Assoc Warden, South Carolina Dept Corrections; MS. REMBERT, General Counsel, ICC; DAVID TATARSKY, General Counsel; JAMES SIMMONS, III, IGC; STAN BRUTT, Warden; SANDRA S. BOWIE, IGC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (3:07-cv-03884-DCN) Submitted: July
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6114 GEORGE ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. THOMPSON, Assoc Warden, South Carolina Dept Corrections; MS. REMBERT, General Counsel, ICC; DAVID TATARSKY, General Counsel; JAMES SIMMONS, III, IGC; STAN BRUTT, Warden; SANDRA S. BOWIE, IGC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (3:07-cv-03884-DCN) Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Adams 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. Adams v. Thompson, No. 3:07-cv-03884-DCN (D.S.C. filed Jan. 13, 2009 & entered Jan. 14, 2009). We grant Adams’ motion to file a supplemental informal brief and deny his motions for a transcript at Government expense, for default judgment, and for injunctive relief. 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