Duncan v. Gordon
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY DUNCAN, a/k/a Jimmy L. Duncan, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. GORDON, Sergeant, Lee Correctional Institution; JANE DOE, a/k/a NFN Slade, Nurse, Lee Correctional Institution; JANE DOE, a/k/a NFN Robinson, Nurse, Lee Correctional Institution; OFFICER ANDERSON, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution; OFFICER DUBOSE, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution; OFFICER BRUNSON, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution; SERGEANT ROBERTS, a/k/a NFN Robertson, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (8:06-cv-00396-MBS)
December 20, 2007
December 28, 2007
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Duncan, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: Jimmy Duncan 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, and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment and motion to stay. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Duncan v. Gordon, No. 8:06-cv-00396-MBS (D.S.C. Mar. 29, We further
2007; filed July 11, 2007 & entered July 12, 2007).
deny Duncan's motions to authorize preparation of transcript at government expense and for default judgment. 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 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?