Filed: May 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6142 LARRY SCOTT, a/k/a John Doe, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR GOWAN; CARL MITCHELL, Doctor, Physician, Defendants - Appellees, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY MAYNARD, Director, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-4206-3-22BC) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6142 LARRY SCOTT, a/k/a John Doe, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR GOWAN; CARL MITCHELL, Doctor, Physician, Defendants - Appellees, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY MAYNARD, Director, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-4206-3-22BC) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6142 LARRY SCOTT, a/k/a John Doe, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR GOWAN; CARL MITCHELL, Doctor, Physician, Defendants - Appellees, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY MAYNARD, Director, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-4206-3-22BC) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, MCKAY & SETTANA, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry Scott 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Scott v. Gowan, No. CA- 02-4206-3-22BC (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 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 -