Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Patrick Guess v. Cecilia Reynolds, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Patrick Guess on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Guess v. Reynolds, No. 9:10-01161-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011). The Court also denied Guess's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-12-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7153

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Patrick Guess on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Guess v. Reynolds, No. 9:10-01161-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011). The Court also denied Guess's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views2 pages

    Patrick Guess v. Cecilia Reynolds, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief to Patrick Guess on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Guess v. Reynolds, No. 9:10-01161-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011). The Court also denied Guess's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    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    UNPUBLISHED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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Patrick

    Guess

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    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

    You might also like