U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2004

Pruitt v. Moore

Pruitt v. Moore
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 6, 2004

Pruitt v. Moore

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7149

JERRY NATHAN PRUITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; NATHANIEL HUGHES; ARA HEALTH SERVICES; CMS; DR. KENNEDY; DOCTOR ALEWINE; DOCTOR RENTZ; DOCTOR GOWAN; MR. GIDDINGS; MR. LESTER; KEN MCKELLAR; MR. MCCANTS; JOHN KING, Mr.; MR. COHEN; MR. CAUSEY; MR. LONG; ALBRITAN; MS. FREEMAN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WHITNEY; LEVINE; MS. OSWALD; GERALDINE MIRO, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-395-3-24BC)

Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 6, 2004

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Nathan Pruitt, Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens, Elbert Olivine Duffie, III, Robert Douglas Simmons Mellard, BOGOSLOW, JONES, STEPHENS & DUFFIE, P.A., Walterboro, South Carolina; James Miller Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jerry Nathan Pruitt appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pruitt v. Moore, No. CA- 02-395-3-24BC (D.S.C. July 9, 2003). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.