Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jones v. State of SC, 02-7710 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7710 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 18, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7710 M. RODNEY JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY D. MAYNARD, Director; JIM HODGES, The South Carolina Governor; CHARLIE CONDON, The South Carolina Attorney General; ROBERT W. STEWART, South Carolina SLED Chief; JIM CHRISTOPHER, South Carolina SLED Chief; BRENTON GLISSON, South Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7710 M. RODNEY JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY D. MAYNARD, Director; JIM HODGES, The South Carolina Governor; CHARLIE CONDON, The South Carolina Attorney General; ROBERT W. STEWART, South Carolina SLED Chief; JIM CHRISTOPHER, South Carolina SLED Chief; BRENTON GLISSON, South Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-157-3-24) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Saunders McKenzie Bridges, BRIDGES, ORR, DERRICK & ERVIN, Florence, South Carolina; Robert E. Lee, Amy Anderson Wise, AIKEN BRIDGES, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: M. Rodney Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. South Carolina, No. CA-02-157-3-24 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2002). 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. DISMISSED 2
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