Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clowers v. Ozmint, 08-6696 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-6696 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 27, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6696 EUGENE CLOWERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; LEAROY CARTLIDGE, Associate Warden; PARKER, of Classification, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Dist
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6696 EUGENE CLOWERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; LEAROY CARTLIDGE, Associate Warden; PARKER, of Classification, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:06-cv-02530-MBS) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. EuGene Clowers, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: EuGene Clowers appeals the district court’s order rejecting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to dismiss Clowers’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to prosecute but ultimately denying relief on Clowers’ complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clowers v. Ozmint, No. 2:06-cv-02530-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2008; entered Mar. 31, 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 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