Filed: Dec. 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7386 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE GINTOLI; RUSSELL HUGHES; BRENDA RICE-YOUNG; PAMELA M. CRAWFORD; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; BEVERLY WOODS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-2552-3) Submitted: November 21, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Befor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7386 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE GINTOLI; RUSSELL HUGHES; BRENDA RICE-YOUNG; PAMELA M. CRAWFORD; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; BEVERLY WOODS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-2552-3) Submitted: November 21, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7386 KRIS SARAYN KOLLYNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE GINTOLI; RUSSELL HUGHES; BRENDA RICE-YOUNG; PAMELA M. CRAWFORD; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; BEVERLY WOODS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-04-2552-3) Submitted: November 21, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kris Sarayn Kollyns appeals a district court order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Kollyns’ civil rights complaint. We agree with the district court that Kollyns did not create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to a serious medical need. As such, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kollyns v. Gintoli, No. CA- 04-2552-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 18, 2005). 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 - 2 -