Filed: Feb. 17, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7022 JAMES D. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY PADULA, Lee CI Warden; LINDA DUNLAP, SCDC Medical Nurse Director; GENE NOLES, SCDC Inmate Grievance Director; JON OZMINT, SCDC Director; DOCTOR DAVIS, SCDC Medical Director; C. JAMES; GERALDINE P. MIRO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03240-HFF
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7022 JAMES D. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY PADULA, Lee CI Warden; LINDA DUNLAP, SCDC Medical Nurse Director; GENE NOLES, SCDC Inmate Grievance Director; JON OZMINT, SCDC Director; DOCTOR DAVIS, SCDC Medical Director; C. JAMES; GERALDINE P. MIRO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-03240-HFF)..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7022
JAMES D. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY PADULA, Lee CI Warden; LINDA DUNLAP, SCDC Medical
Nurse Director; GENE NOLES, SCDC Inmate Grievance Director;
JON OZMINT, SCDC Director; DOCTOR DAVIS, SCDC Medical
Director; C. JAMES; GERALDINE P. MIRO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(0:08-cv-03240-HFF)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James D. Scott 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.
Scott v. Padula, No. 0:08-cv-03240-HFF (D.S.C. filed June 30,
2010; entered July 1, 2010). 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
*
Pursuant to 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we have limited our review
to the issues raised in Scott’s informal brief.
2