Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coleman v. Rentz, 95-8552 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-8552 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8552 ELTON E. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUNTER RENTZ, Doctor, Director of Medical Services for SCDC; PARKER EVATT, Director of Bureau of Prisons, SCDC; JAMES L. HARVEY, Regional Administrator; LINDA DUNLAP, BRCI, RN; MINNIE WILLIAMS, RN, Supervisor of Shift; DOCTOR ELLIOTT, MD, Unit BRCI, known as Broad River Correctional Unit; in their individual and/or official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from th
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-8552 ELTON E. COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUNTER RENTZ, Doctor, Director of Medical Services for SCDC; PARKER EVATT, Director of Bureau of Prisons, SCDC; JAMES L. HARVEY, Regional Administrator; LINDA DUNLAP, BRCI, RN; MINNIE WILLIAMS, RN, Supervisor of Shift; DOCTOR ELLIOTT, MD, Unit BRCI, known as Broad River Correctional Unit; in their individual and/or official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-658-6-20) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elton E. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Ronald Stanley, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. Coleman v. Rentz, No. CA-95-658-6-20 (D.S.C. Nov. 28, 1995). We deny Appellant's mo- tion for the appointment of counsel and 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 deci- sional 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