Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stuart Tompkins v. Department of Correction, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    Stuart Wayne Tompkins filed a § 1983 complaint against multiple defendants related to his incarceration. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit granted Tompkins' motion to file a supplemental brief but denied his motion for appointment of counsel, determining that oral argument was not necessary given the adequacy of the materials already before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-09-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6741

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Stuart Wayne Tompkins filed a § 1983 complaint against multiple defendants related to his incarceration. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit granted Tompkins' motion to file a supplemental brief but denied his motion for appointment of counsel, determining that oral argument was not necessary given the adequacy of the materials already before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views3 pages

    Stuart Tompkins v. Department of Correction, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Stuart Wayne Tompkins filed a § 1983 complaint against multiple defendants related to his incarceration. The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit granted Tompkins' motion to file a supplemental brief but denied his motion for appointment of counsel, determining that oral argument was not necessary given the adequacy of the materials already before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-6741

    STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; J. N. VAUGHAN; OFFICER HUNT; BILL
    CARROL; OFFICER BARBER; SERGEANT MASON; ROBERT C. LEWIS;
    ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.; BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE; NANCY B. CRITES;
    OFFICER SEALS; OFFICER THOMPSON; OFFICER JONES; ASSISTANT
    SUPERINTENDENT HUNT; PAUL TAYLOR; SANDRA THOMAS; SUPERVISOR
    TROUBLEFIELD;
    J.
    HAYNES,
    Superintendent;
    LYNN
    HENRY;
    JOHN/JANE DOE, Supervisor in Mailroom; OFFICER MEDLIN; K.
    DUFAULT; CONNIE BRAY; K. LOCKLEAR; KIMBLE, Medical PDI;
    NURSE SUPERVISOR COLDSMITH; JANE DOE, Nurse at Lumberton
    Correctional
    Institution;
    JOHN/JANE
    DOE,
    Medical
    Administrator; DOCTOR DAVIS; JOHN/JANE DOE, Doctor; JOHN
    DOE, Lieutenant; JOHN/JANE DOE, Director of Support Service;
    BOYD BENNETT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:10-ct-03224-BO)

    Submitted:

    September 11, 2012

    Decided:

    September 13, 2012

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski,


    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Martin
    Rossie Jernigan, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Kelly Elizabeth
    Street, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Stuart

    Wayne

    Tompkins

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint.


    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Tompkins

    v.

    Dept

    of

    Corr.,

    No.

    (E.D.N.C. June 13, 2011 & Mar. 21, 2012).


    motion

    to

    file

    supplemental

    brief,

    5:10-ct-03224-BO

    We grant Tompkins

    deny

    his

    motion

    for

    appointment of counsel, and 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

    You might also like