Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Phillips, 04-7936 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7936 Visitors: 26
Filed: Apr. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7936 MICHAEL L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANICE PHILLIPS, head of medical at South Carolina Department of Corrections; MEDICAL STAFF, at Manning Correctional Institution; MEDICAL STAFF, at Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-7955 MICHAEL L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANICE PHILLIPS, head of medical at South Carolina Department of Corrections; MEDICAL STAFF, at Manning Correcti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7936 MICHAEL L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANICE PHILLIPS, head of medical at South Carolina Department of Corrections; MEDICAL STAFF, at Manning Correctional Institution; MEDICAL STAFF, at Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-7955 MICHAEL L. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANICE PHILLIPS, head of medical at South Carolina Department of Corrections; MEDICAL STAFF, at Manning Correctional Institution; MEDICAL STAFF, at Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-3203-3) Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael L. 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jones v. Phillips, No. CA-03-3203-3 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2004). Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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