Corey Robinson v. T. Clark

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00502-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court. [999222057]. Mailed to: Corey Robinson. [13-7019]

Appeal: 13-7019

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7019

COREY JAWAN ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN T. CLARK; MS. D. BAILEY, Classification; LIEUTENANT
J. WILLIAMS; OFFICER MOSHER; LOLITA M. LEE; SHERISSE D.
BIRCH; LORETTA AIKEN; WARDEN WAYNE MCCABE; IGC B. J. THOMAS;
OFFICER J. MIDDLETON; OFFFICER JEREMY JOHNSON; NURSE LUANNE
MAUNEY; NURSE J. SCOTT; ANN HALLMAN; OFFICER TABITHA FORD;
MS. S. JONES; MAJOR THIERRY NETTLES; ASSOCIATE WARDEN FRED
THOMPSON; WILLIAM BRIGHTHARP; CAPTAIN ANN SHEPPARD,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SERGEANT
J.
CORRECTIONS,

ARANDA;

SOUTH

CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT

OF

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:12-cv-00502-JMC)

Submitted:

October 17, 2013

Decided: October 21, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 13-7019

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Corey Jawan Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Elloree Ann Ganes,
Thomas Happel Scurry, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina;
Michael Charles Tanner, MICHAEL C. TANNER LAW OFFICE, Bamberg,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-7019

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey

Jawan

Robinson

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.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Robinson

June 18,
facts

2013).

and

materials

v.

legal
before

We

Clark,

No.

dispense

with

5:12-cv-00502-JMC
oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

(D.S.C.

not

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3