Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Luxurious X v. Vincent, 03-7935 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7935 Visitors: 70
Filed: May 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7935 LUXURIOUS X, a/k/a Timothy Lloyd, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARTON VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel of SCDC; JOSEPH COUNTS, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; BARNEY LOYD, Associate Warden; HERB JOHNS, Institutional Grievance Coordinator; PAUL BREWTON, Major; PERNELL CROMER, Captain; BILLY LAUGHTER, Lieutenant; MIKE GREGORY, Sergeant; WILEY BAKER, Classification Caseworker; MEMBERS OF TYGER RI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7935 LUXURIOUS X, a/k/a Timothy Lloyd, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARTON VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel of SCDC; JOSEPH COUNTS, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; BARNEY LOYD, Associate Warden; HERB JOHNS, Institutional Grievance Coordinator; PAUL BREWTON, Major; PERNELL CROMER, Captain; BILLY LAUGHTER, Lieutenant; MIKE GREGORY, Sergeant; WILEY BAKER, Classification Caseworker; MEMBERS OF TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION LOWER YARD INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 21, 2001, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-4419-6) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luxurious X, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald Patrick Tinsley, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Luxurious X appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Luxurious X v. Vincent, No. CA-01-4419-6 (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 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