Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Poe v. Ozmint, 06-8030 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-8030 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 21, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8030 RICHARD KEITH POE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; JOSEPH L. ANDERSON, Warden; SANDRA BARRETT; CHARLOTTE GRECO; SAM STRICKLAND; LISA PARNELL, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees, and MEDICAL STAFF; CORRECTIONAL STAFF, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8030 RICHARD KEITH POE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; JOSEPH L. ANDERSON, Warden; SANDRA BARRETT; CHARLOTTE GRECO; SAM STRICKLAND; LISA PARNELL, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees, and MEDICAL STAFF; CORRECTIONAL STAFF, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:05-cv-01568-CMC) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Keith Poe, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., John Eric Kaufmann, MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard Keith Poe 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 deny Poe’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Poe v. Ozmint, No. 0:05-cv-01568-CMC (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2006). 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