Mitchell Sumpter v. A. Lane Cribb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-00180-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999786821]. Mailed to: Michael Sumpter. [15-7753]

Appeal: 15-7753

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7753

MITCHELL LEE SUMPTER, a/k/a Mitchell Lee Truman Sumpter,
a/k/a Mitchell L. Sumpter, a/k/a Mitchell Sumpter,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. LANE CRIBB, Sheriff of Georgetown County, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity; MICHAEL A.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Administrator, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; MAJOR MORTON, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity; CAPT. WINEGLASS,
All in their individual capacity and official capacity; LT.
ANDERSON, All in their individual capacity and official
capacity; SGT. HARRISON, All in their individual capacity and
official capacity; CHAPLAIN WILLIAMS, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; FOOD SUPERVISOR WALKER, All
in their individual capacity and official capacity; SGT.
WRAGG, All in their individual capacity and official capacity;
SGT. HARRIS, All in their individual capacity and official
capacity; SGT. DRYER, All in their individual capacity and
official capacity; SGT. WILLIAMS, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; OFFICER POINCET, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity; OFFICER MANOR, All
in their individual capacity and official capacity; OFFICER
GIBBS, All in their individual capacity and official capacity;
OFFICER OLIVER, All in their individual capacity and official
capacity; OFFICER PEREZ, All in their individual capacity and
official capacity; OFFICER ROBINSON, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; OFFICER MATTHEWS, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity; OFFICER WASHINTON,
All in their individual capacity and official capacity;
SERGEANT TEETER, All in their individual capacity and official
capacity; MR. MARTIN, Maintenance, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; LT. CLAREY, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,

Appeal: 15-7753

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

and
GEORGETOWN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, All
in their individual capacity and individual capacity; NURSE
CONNIE, a/k/a Constance Reichard, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; NURSE DOREAN, a/k/a Doreen
McLean, All in their individual capacity and official
capacity; DR. REEVES, a/k/a Thomas Rives, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity; ALL MAINTENANCE
STAFF, All in their individual capacity and official capacity;
ALL LIEUTENANTS, All in their individual capacity and official
capacity; ALL SERGEANTS, All in their individual capacity and
official capacity; ALL CORPORALS, All in their individual
capacity and official capacity; ALL OFFICERS, All in their
individual capacity and official capacity,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-00180-MGL)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Lee Sumpter, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler,
LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7753

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mitchell

Lee

Sumpter

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
the record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

Sumpter v. Cribb,

No. 8:14-cv-00180-MGL (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2015).

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