Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Willie Hines v. Chad Robinson, 13-6484 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-6484 Visitors: 30
Filed: Sep. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6484 WILLIE JUNIOR HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHAD ROBINSON; ADETORO SOBOWALE; AMY ENLOE; TERRI COMP; DAVE TATARSKY; MICHAEL LAUBSHIRE; ROBERT WARD; WARDEN MCCALL; TIMOTHY P. CLOSE; W. J. BAYARD; JOHN DOE, Kirkland Medical Institution, Defendants – Appellees, and KIRKLAND JANE DOE MEDICAL; STEVEN M. PRUITT; SCDC; COACH ROBINSON; MD IMAGE CARE LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States Dist
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6484 WILLIE JUNIOR HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHAD ROBINSON; ADETORO SOBOWALE; AMY ENLOE; TERRI COMP; DAVE TATARSKY; MICHAEL LAUBSHIRE; ROBERT WARD; WARDEN MCCALL; TIMOTHY P. CLOSE; W. J. BAYARD; JOHN DOE, Kirkland Medical Institution, Defendants – Appellees, and KIRKLAND JANE DOE MEDICAL; STEVEN M. PRUITT; SCDC; COACH ROBINSON; MD IMAGE CARE LLC, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-01834-GRA) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Junior Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Heyward Clarkson, III, CLARKSON WALSH TERRELL & COULTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; Shelton Webber Haile, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Willie Junior Hines appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief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 deny Hines’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hines v. Robinson, No. 6:12-cv-01834-GRA (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2013). 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 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