Filed: Apr. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7348 ALEX D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director SCDC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00915-TLW) Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lind
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7348 ALEX D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director SCDC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00915-TLW) Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Linde..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7348
ALEX D. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director SCDC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00915-TLW)
Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 20, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alex D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alex D. Taylor 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.
Taylor v. Ozmint, No. 1:09-cv-00915-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 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
2