Alphonso Haynesworth v. South Carolina Department of C


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to show cause [998383906-2] Originating case number: 8:10-cv-00507-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998474437] [10-6717]

Download PDF
Alphonso Haynesworth v. South Carolina Department of C Doc. 0 Case: 10-6717 Document: 11 Date Filed: 11/30/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6717 ALPHONSO HAYNESWORTH, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL LAUBSHIRE; ROBERT WARD; JON OZMINT; WILLIE EAGLETON; REDFEARN MILLER; ANNIE SELLARS; BEVERLY BAKER; ANTHONY WHILTINGTON; PAMELA D. MCDOWELL; OFFICER DRIGGERS; OFFICER JOSEPH; G. ROGERS, Captain; K. LEAR, Sergeant; SERGEANT THOMAS; MS. THOMAS; A. GRAVES; B. MILLER, Mrs., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:10-cv-00507-CMC) Submitted: November 18, 2010 AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 30, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6717 Document: 11 Date Filed: 11/30/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing complaint. * error. without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Haynesworth v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 8:10Apr. to 30, show 2010). cause We and deny Haynesworth's with oral district court. cv-00507-CMC motion for (D.S.C. an order dispense 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 * See The district court's order is a final, appealable order. Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir. 2005). 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?