Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bryan v. SCDC, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Terence Terell Bryan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and staff. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Bryan's complaint for the reasons stated in its order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-07-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-6538

    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 Terence Terell Bryan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and staff. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Bryan's complaint for the reasons stated in its order.

    Copyright:

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

    Bryan v. SCDC, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Terence Terell Bryan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various South Carolina Department of Corrections officials and staff. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The district court had accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Bryan's complaint for the reasons stated in its order.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 09-6538

    TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a Terence Bryan,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    and
    JOHNNY CALLOWAY,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    SCDC; CAPTAIN THOMAS; SERGEANT GREEN; CORPORAL JEFFERSON;
    OFFICER
    MEBRIDE;
    ASSISTANT
    WARDEN
    CARTLEDGE;
    SERGEANT
    MCCALL; DONNA MITCHELL, Lee Correctional Institution-IGC;
    LIEUTENANT WILLIAMS; NURSE MCCASKILL; NURSE OWENS; OFFICER
    SCOTT; OFFICER ABRAMS; MR. FOWLER, PCI-IGC; MS. ROACH, Law
    Library; WARDEN STEVENSON; MS. ALLEN, BRCI-IGC; CAPTAIN
    JONES; NFN STEVENS, BRCI Mailroom; JAMES SIMMONS, III, Chief
    IGC; MARY COLEMAN, Chief IGC; DAVID TATARSKY, General
    Counsel, all in their individual capacities,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    OFFICER JACKSON; SERGEANT MILES; OFFICER ANDERSON; OFFICER
    HATCHET; OFFICER WIGTING; MAJOR PRICE,
    Defendants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:07-cv-00021-TLW)

    Submitted:

    July 23, 2009

    Decided:

    July 30, 2009

    Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se.


    Edgar Lloyd Willcox,
    II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Terence

    Terell

    Bryan

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


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

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    See Bryan v. SCDC, No. 4:07-cv-00021-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 2,

    2009).

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like