Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pruitt v. Moore, 03-7149 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7149 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7149 JERRY NATHAN PRUITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; NATHANIEL HUGHES; ARA HEALTH SERVICES; CMS; DR. KENNEDY; DOCTOR ALEWINE; DOCTOR RENTZ; DOCTOR GOWAN; MR. GIDDINGS; MR. LESTER; KEN MCKELLAR; MR. MCCANTS; JOHN KING, Mr.; MR. COHEN; MR. CAUSEY; MR. LONG; ALBRITAN; MS. FREEMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WHITNEY; LEVINE; MS. OSWALD; GERALDINE MIRO, Defendants
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7149 JERRY NATHAN PRUITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; NATHANIEL HUGHES; ARA HEALTH SERVICES; CMS; DR. KENNEDY; DOCTOR ALEWINE; DOCTOR RENTZ; DOCTOR GOWAN; MR. GIDDINGS; MR. LESTER; KEN MCKELLAR; MR. MCCANTS; JOHN KING, Mr.; MR. COHEN; MR. CAUSEY; MR. LONG; ALBRITAN; MS. FREEMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WHITNEY; LEVINE; MS. OSWALD; GERALDINE MIRO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-395-3-24BC) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Nathan Pruitt, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens, Elbert Olivine Duffie, III, Robert Douglas Simmons Mellard, BOGOSLOW, JONES, STEPHENS & DUFFIE, P.A., Walterboro, South Carolina; James Miller Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Nathan Pruitt 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pruitt v. Moore, No. CA- 02-395-3-24BC (D.S.C. July 9, 2003). 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 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