Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

David Buff v. South Carolina Dep't of Corrections, 12-7597 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7597 Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7597 DAVID KEITH BUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON E. OZMINT, Director; UNKNOWN DIRECTOR; ELBERT PEARSON, Security Threat Group Coordinator; MCKITHER BODISON, Warden; WAYNE MCCABE, Warden; RALPH HUNTER, Associate Warden; FRED THOMPSON, Associate Warden; EUGENE SKIPPER, Sergeant; JAMANA RAVENELL, Caseworker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for t
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7597 DAVID KEITH BUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON E. OZMINT, Director; UNKNOWN DIRECTOR; ELBERT PEARSON, Security Threat Group Coordinator; MCKITHER BODISON, Warden; WAYNE MCCABE, Warden; RALPH HUNTER, Associate Warden; FRED THOMPSON, Associate Warden; EUGENE SKIPPER, Sergeant; JAMANA RAVENELL, Caseworker, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00234-TLW) Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Keith Buff, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Keith Buff 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, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Buff v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:11-cv-00234-TLW (D.S.C. July 25, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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