Thomas Fair, Jr. v. Jon Ozmint

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Thomas Fair, Jr. v. Jon Ozmint

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6656

THOMAS MARVIN FAIR, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JON E. OZMINT, Director for the South Carolina Department of Corrections; ROBERT E. WARD, Division Director of Operations for the South Carolina Department of Corrections; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., Operations Coordinator of the South Carolina Department of Corrections and the rest of the Prison Rape Elimination Act Review Committee et al; ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; C. YORK, Classification Caseworker at Lee Correctional Institution; BRUCE OBERMAN, Special Management Unit Administrator at Lee Correctional Institution; ANTHONY DAVIS, Lieutenant at Lee Correctional Institution; R. HILTON, Classification Caseworker at Lee Correctional Institution all in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:10-cv-01268-RMG)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Marvin Fair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Thomas Marvin Fair, Jr., 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. Fair v. Ozmint, No. 6:10-cv-01268-RMG (D.S.C. May 2,

2011). We deny Fair’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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Unpublished