Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lindsey v. Evatt, 96-7152 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7152 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7152 ROY GAREY LINDSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, S.C. Department of Corrections; S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution; JAN WHITMIRE, Head Nurse; CHARLES BROCK, Deputy Warden; DR. BLAND, Head Doctor; DONALD DEASE, Administra- tor; DR. BURDGE; DR. BEARDEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. W
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7152 ROY GAREY LINDSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, S.C. Department of Corrections; S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution; JAN WHITMIRE, Head Nurse; CHARLES BROCK, Deputy Warden; DR. BLAND, Head Doctor; DONALD DEASE, Administra- tor; DR. BURDGE; DR. BEARDEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-746-10-21BD) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Garey Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OF- FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert E. Peterson, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) 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. Lindsey v. Evatt, No. CA- 94-746-10-21BD (D.S.C. June 5, 1996). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 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