Michael Stephens v. Gary Kubic

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998200441-2] Originating case number: 4:08-cv-00329-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998385224] [09-7699]

Download PDF
Michael Stephens v. Gary Kubic Doc. 0 Case: 09-7699 Document: 19 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7699 MICHAEL T. STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GARY KUBIC; PHILIP A. FOOT; CHARLES ALLEN; JO ANN DEBOE; CHARLES BUSH, Doctor; NURSE HOLDEN; NURSE CARLISLE; SUSAN FOOT; PAROLE AGENT ROWELL; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00329-CMC) Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael T. Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr., GRIFFITH & SADLER, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina; Elliott T. Halio, HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-7699 Document: 19 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Michael T. Stephens appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. have reviewed we the record and find no reversible for We error. of Accordingly, deny Stephens's motion appointment counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stephens v. Kubic, No. 4:08-cv-00329-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 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 2

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?