Dr. Greg Battersby v. Dr. Joseph Carew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00761-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999577528]. [14-1937]

Appeal: 14-1937

Doc: 33

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1937

DR. GREG BATTERSBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. JOSEPH CAREW, in his individual and official capacities;
DR. RICHARD HEAVNER, in his individual and official
capacities; DR. BRIAN HUGHES, in his individual and official
capacities; DR. JEANNE MCDANIEL-GREEN, in her individual and
official capacities; DR. JOHN MCGINNIS, in his individual
and official capacities; DR. DAVID MRUZ, in his individual
and official capacities; DR. RALPH ROLES, in his individual
and
official
capacities;
DR.
HARVEY
GARCIA,
in
his
individual and official capacities; E. J. MERCER, in his
individual and official capacities; JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:14-cv-00761-HMH)

Submitted:

February 24, 2015

Decided:

May 5, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Fein, BRUCE FEIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., Washington, D.C.;
Donald L. Smith, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Eugene H. Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A.,

Appeal: 14-1937

Doc: 33

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1937

Doc: 33

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dr.
denying

Greg
relief

Battersby
on

his

appeals
42

the

U.S.C.

district

§ 1983

granting summary judgment for Defendants.
record and find no reversible error.

court’s

(2012)

order

complaint

by

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Battersby v. Carew,

No. 8:14-cv-00761-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2014).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3