Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

David Stevens v. Hampton, U Nurse of the Medical Department for the Central Correctional Institution, Both Individually and Officially, 95-7448 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7448 Visitors: 34
Filed: Dec. 12, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 72 F.3d 128 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. David STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPTON, U Nurse of the Medical Department for the Central Correctional Institution, both individually and officially, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-7448. United States Court of Appeals, Fou
More

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

David STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAMPTON,U Nurse of the Medical Department
for the Central Correctional Institution, both
individually and officially, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-7448.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-2597-3-17BD).

David Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson II, Elizabeth Newell Keenan, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON, SIMS, MORRISON & SOJOURNER, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stevens v. Hampton, No. CA-93-2597-3-17BD (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 1995). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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