Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6109 LARRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN W. THOMPSON; MAJOR NETTLES; LIEUTENANT OWENS, as shift; CAPTAIN AL COXTE; WARDEN HUNTER; S. JONES, Mail Room Staff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:10-cv-02392-MBS) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6109 LARRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN W. THOMPSON; MAJOR NETTLES; LIEUTENANT OWENS, as shift; CAPTAIN AL COXTE; WARDEN HUNTER; S. JONES, Mail Room Staff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:10-cv-02392-MBS) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6109
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN W. THOMPSON; MAJOR NETTLES; LIEUTENANT OWENS, as
shift; CAPTAIN AL COXTE; WARDEN HUNTER; S. JONES, Mail Room
Staff,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-02392-MBS)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Williams appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed under the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Williams v. Thompson, No. 3:10-cv-02392-MBS (D.S.C. Jan.
14, 2011). 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