Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stroman v. Bearden, 07-7752 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7752 Visitors: 54
Filed: Apr. 11, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7752 SAMMIE STROMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD C. BEARDEN, Medical Doctor at Tyger River Correctional Institution; DONNA SMALLEY, Nurse at Tyger River Correctional Institution; TIM RILEY, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; BARNEY LLOYD, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; J. C. COUNTS, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; JANE DOE, X-Ray Technician at Kirkland
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7752 SAMMIE STROMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD C. BEARDEN, Medical Doctor at Tyger River Correctional Institution; DONNA SMALLEY, Nurse at Tyger River Correctional Institution; TIM RILEY, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; BARNEY LLOYD, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; J. C. COUNTS, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; JANE DOE, X-Ray Technician at Kirkland Correctional Institution Infirmary, also known as Ms. Regina, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:06-cv-02055-PMD) Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 11, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Stroman, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher R. Antley, DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sammie Stroman 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 Stroman v. Bearden, No. 9:06-cv-02055-PMD (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2007). 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