Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • McFadden v. Alwine, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Bernard McFadden filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at the Wateree Correctional Institution alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied McFadden relief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The motion to compel filing of affidavits was denied as moot since the affidavits were already included in the district court record.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-04-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7448

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bernard McFadden filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at the Wateree Correctional Institution alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied McFadden relief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The motion to compel filing of affidavits was denied as moot since the affidavits were already included in the district court record.

    Copyright:

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

    McFadden v. Alwine, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Bernard McFadden filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at the Wateree Correctional Institution alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied McFadden relief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The motion to compel filing of affidavits was denied as moot since the affidavits were already included in the district court record.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-7448

    BERNARD MCFADDEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    GLENN ALWINE, SCDC Medical Board Director;
    JOHN A. DAVIS; LISA PARNELL, Head nurse
    Wateree Correctional Institution; CHARLETTE
    GRECO,
    Practitioner
    Wateree
    Correctional
    Institution, in their official, individual, or
    personal capacities,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (CA-04-2421-3)

    Submitted:

    March 30, 2006

    Decided: April 6, 2006

    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Lee, Benjamin Albert


    Baroody, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Bernard

    McFadden

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    adopting the report and recommendation of magistrate judge and


    denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000).
    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    See McFadden v. Allen, No. CA-04-2421-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 3,

    2005; Aug. 5, 2005).

    We deny as moot McFaddens motion to compel

    the district court to file three affidavits, because the affidavits


    are included in the district courts record as attachments to
    McFaddens Motion in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like