Filed: Aug. 11, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6666 ERNEST DOE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, The Classification System; JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-04109-CMC) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6666 ERNEST DOE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, The Classification System; JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-04109-CMC) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6666 ERNEST DOE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, The Classification System; JON OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-04109-CMC) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 11, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Doe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ernest Doe appeals the district court’s order 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. Doe v. South Carolina Dep’t. of Corr., No. 3:07-cv-04109-CMC (D.S.C. filed Feb. 13, 2008; entered Feb. 14, 2008). Doe’s motions for appointment of counsel and to amend the complaint are denied. 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 -
