Jones v. Barnes

Filing 920060830

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1444

CLARENCE EVERETT JONES, SR., individually and on behalf of all present and future inmates in the Dorchester County Jails in Summerville, South Carolina and in St. George, South Carolina, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN R. BARNES, Jail Administrator; A. PASTOR, Captain, Detention Center Commander; S. GREEN, First Lieutenant and Detention Supervisor; J. WASHINGTON, First Lieutenant and Administrative Officer; L. CARMICHAEL, Lieutenant; C. HEYWARD, Lieutenant; S. EVERETT, Lieutenant; L. HAYNES, Lieutenant and Jail Team Commander; DORCHESTER COUNTY; SKIP ELLIOT; CHRIS MURPHY; LARRY HARGETT; RICHARD ROSEBROCK, Dorchester County Council Member; RAY NASH, Dorchester County Sheriff; TARA RICHARDSON, City Magistrate of Dorchester County in her official capacity; RANDY SCOTT, Chairman, Defendants - Appellees, and KERRY MITCHELL CARN, individually, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:04-cv-02527-MBS)

Submitted:

August 11, 2006

Decided:

August 30, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Everett Jones, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James Albert Stuckey, Jr., STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: Clarence Everett Jones, Sr., appeals the district court's order concurring in the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation and denying relief on his civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record

Accordingly, we affirm the district

court's order on the modified ground that Jones failed to state a claim for improper prison conditions and medical mistreatment. See Jones v. Barnes, No. 2:04-cv-02527-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 23, 2006). 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 -