Patrick Guess v. Cecilia Reynold

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998687682-2] Originating case number: 9:10-cv-01161-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998744844]. Mailed to: Patrick Guess. [11-7153]

Appeal: 11-7153

Document: 20

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7153

PATRICK GUESS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution;
TIMOTHY RILEY, Warden, Tyger River Institution; JON OZMINT,
Agency
Director;
JERRY
G.
ALEXANDER,
Captain;
MS.
MIDDLEBROOK,
Administration
Tyger
River
Correctional
Institution; GARY LANE, Assistant Warden, Tyger River
Correctional
Institution;
LAURA
CALDWELL,
Tyger
River
Correctional Institution; Ms. D. MANESS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(9:10-cv-01161-TLW)

Submitted:

December 6, 2011

Decided:

December 15, 2011

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Guess, Appellant Pro Se.
William Henry Davidson, II,
Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7153

Document: 20

Date Filed: 12/15/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Patrick

Guess

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.

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

We

have

Accordingly,

district

court.

Guess v. Reynolds, No. 9:10-01161-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011).

We

deny Guess’ motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2