Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Valentine v. Richardson, 08-6242 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6242 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 01, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6242 RANDY L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. RICHARDSON, Officer; LIEUTENANT PRESSLY; R. GOINS, Officer; OFFICER BENNET; OFFICER LABONTE; OFFICER CREASY; D. GARDO, Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLIAMS; OFFICER YOUNGBLOOD; JONATHAN TALLY, Officer; SERGEANT NATION; B. JONES, Officer; OFFICER DOE; KRISTY MCCRAW, Officer; GREENVILLE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees, and NURSE GAY; LEGESSE TEBEJE, M.D.; NURSE JUDY; LAWR
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6242 RANDY L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. RICHARDSON, Officer; LIEUTENANT PRESSLY; R. GOINS, Officer; OFFICER BENNET; OFFICER LABONTE; OFFICER CREASY; D. GARDO, Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLIAMS; OFFICER YOUNGBLOOD; JONATHAN TALLY, Officer; SERGEANT NATION; B. JONES, Officer; OFFICER DOE; KRISTY MCCRAW, Officer; GREENVILLE COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees, and NURSE GAY; LEGESSE TEBEJE, M.D.; NURSE JUDY; LAWRENCE CRANE, Attorney; JOHN CALEB PEASE, M.D.; GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:05-cv-00485-HMH) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Randy L. Valentine 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. Valentine v. Richardson, No. 4:05-cv-00485-HMH (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2008). 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