Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nicholas v. Ozmint, 18-4660 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-4660 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7667 RON TEARIA NICHOLAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; SERGEANT PARKER, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT WILBERT MCGRAW, Kirkland Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees, and THOMAS, Kirkland Correctional Institution Food Service Supervisor; MUTAHHIR SABREE, Muslim Chaplain for Kirkland Correctional Institution, Defendants. Appeal
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7667 RON TEARIA NICHOLAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; SERGEANT PARKER, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT WILBERT MCGRAW, Kirkland Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees, and THOMAS, Kirkland Correctional Institution Food Service Supervisor; MUTAHHIR SABREE, Muslim Chaplain for Kirkland Correctional Institution, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:05-cv-03472-RBH) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: July 11, 2007 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ron Tearia Nicholas, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ron Tearia Nicholas appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nicholas v. Ozmint, No. 8:05-cv-03472-RBH (D.S.C. Sept. 20, 2006). We deny Nicholas’s motion for production of documents and 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