Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brooks v. Golden, 07-7458 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7458 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 06, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7458 ROBERT D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant v. WANTONTA GOLDEN, Correctional Officer; WADE BYRD, Lieutenant; CHARLES WILLIAMS, Sergeant; JONATHAN BENNETT, Sergeant; JONATHAN RANDELL, Captain; FLORENCE MAUNEY, Captain; RICHARD BAZZEL, Warden; MICHAEL FOWLER, Grievance Clerk; R. L. TURNER, Disciplinary Hearing Officer sued in their individual capacity respectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Distri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7458 ROBERT D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant v. WANTONTA GOLDEN, Correctional Officer; WADE BYRD, Lieutenant; CHARLES WILLIAMS, Sergeant; JONATHAN BENNETT, Sergeant; JONATHAN RANDELL, Captain; FLORENCE MAUNEY, Captain; RICHARD BAZZEL, Warden; MICHAEL FOWLER, Grievance Clerk; R. L. TURNER, Disciplinary Hearing Officer sued in their individual capacity respectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:06-cv-01234) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert D. Brooks 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. Brooks v. Golden, No. 6:06-cv-01234 (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2007). We deny Brooks’ motions for appointment of counsel and to file an amended complaint. 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 -
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