Stuart Tompkins v. Joel Herron

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998905884-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00978-TDS-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998988898]. Mailed to: Stuart Tompkins. [12-7210]

Appeal: 12-7210

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7210

STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOEL
HERRON,
Correctional
Administrator;
KRISTIE
B.
STANBACK, Assist. Superintendent; GERALDUNE O. LEWIS; JOHN
DOE LOWERY, Sergant Over Mailroom; JOHN DOE INGRAM, Mailroom
Staff; JANE DOE NORTON, Mailroom Staff; JANE DOE NORRIS,
Mailroom Staff; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Director of Prison; ALVIN
WILLIAM KELLER, JR., Secretary of Correction; BEVERLY EAVES
PERDUE, Governor’s; JAMES C. FRYE, Program Manager; JOHN DOE
COVINGTON, Unit Manager; JANE DOE ALFORD, Assistant Unit
Manager;
MARRIETTA
BARR,
Ex-Assistant
Manager
(Now
Lieutenant); CHANDRA K. RANSOM, a/k/a Jane Doe, Ex-Unit
Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00978-TDS-LPA)

Submitted:

November 20, 2012

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided: November 27, 2012

and

SHEDD

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Appeal: 12-7210

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
Appellees.

Peter Andrew Regulski,
North
Carolina,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-7210

Doc: 39

Filed: 11/27/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stuart

Wayne

Tompkins

appeals

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying

relief

on

his

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2006)

denying his motions for reconsideration.
record and find no reversible error.

complaint

and

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Tompkins v. Herron,

No 1:10-cv-00978-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 30, & July 11, 2012).
Tompkins’

motion

dispense

with

for

oral

appointment
argument

of

counsel

because

the

is

denied.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3