Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jones v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from M. Rodney Jones of a district court order. The district court had denied relief to Jones on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The appeals court reviewed the record and found Jones' appeal to be frivolous, so they dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7710

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from M. Rodney Jones of a district court order. The district court had denied relief to Jones on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The appeals court reviewed the record and found Jones' appeal to be frivolous, so they dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court order.

    Copyright:

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

    Jones v. State of SC, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from M. Rodney Jones of a district court order. The district court had denied relief to Jones on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The appeals court reviewed the record and found Jones' appeal to be frivolous, so they dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning of the district court order.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7710

    M. RODNEY JONES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY D. MAYNARD,
    Director; JIM HODGES, The South Carolina
    Governor; CHARLIE CONDON, The South Carolina
    Attorney General; ROBERT W. STEWART, South
    Carolina SLED Chief; JIM CHRISTOPHER, South
    Carolina SLED Chief; BRENTON GLISSON, South
    Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (CA-02-157-3-24)

    Submitted:

    March 6, 2003

    Decided:

    March 18, 2003

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


    Saunders McKenzie Bridges,
    BRIDGES, ORR, DERRICK & ERVIN, Florence, South Carolina; Robert E.
    Lee, Amy Anderson Wise, AIKEN BRIDGES, Florence, South Carolina,
    for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    M. Rodney Jones appeals the district courts order accepting
    the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
    his

    42

    U.S.C.

    1983

    1915(e)(2)(B) (2000).

    (2000),

    complaint

    under

    28

    U.S.C.

    We have reviewed the record and find that

    this appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

    the reasoning of the district court.

    See Jones v. South Carolina,

    No. CA-02-157-3-24 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2002).

    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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like