Wise v. Ozmint

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Wise v. Ozmint

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7956

GARY L. WISE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, individually and in their official capacities; GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution TCI, individually and in their official capacities; MS. BRADSHAW, Associate Warden, individually and in their official capacities; MS. COTHRAN, Associate Warden, individually and in their official capacities; BILLY HOLIDAY, Law Library Clerk, individually and in their official capacities; GENELL HAM, Ms., Computer Teacher, individually and in their official capacities; KENNETH RAINWATER, Formal IGC, individually and in their official capacities; MS. HODGE, Mailroom Clerk, individually and in their official capacities; MS. KIRBY, Mailroom Clerk, individually and in their official capacities; MAJOR SHARP; ANGELA BROWN; OFFICER GOODEL,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:09-cv-00153-HFF)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, NESS & JETT, LLC, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Gary L. Wise appeals the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant

Defendants summary judgment on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2006)

claims against them. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment. Wise v. Ozmint, 6:09-cv-00153-HFF (D.S.C. Oct. 6,

2009). 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished