Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    William Dawson, Jr. v. Captain Rhonda Abston, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Dawson appealed a district court order that denied his request for a preliminary injunction against prison officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no errors. It affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction for the reasons stated in the lower court's order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    William Dawson, Jr. v. Captain Rhonda Abston, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    William Dawson appealed a district court order that denied his request for a preliminary injunction against prison officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no errors. It affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction for the reasons stated in the lower court's order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-04-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-8059

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    William Dawson appealed a district court order that denied his request for a preliminary injunction against prison officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no errors. It affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction for the reasons stated in the lower court's order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    Copyright:

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

    William Dawson, Jr. v. Captain Rhonda Abston, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    William Dawson appealed a district court order that denied his request for a preliminary injunction against prison officials. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no errors. It affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction for the reasons stated in the lower court's order. The appeals court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the issues were adequately addressed in the court filings.

    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. 13-8059

    WILLIAM DOUGLAS DAWSON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CAPTAIN RHONDA ABSTON; WARDEN MICHAEL MCCALL; ASSISTANT
    WARDEN FLORENCE MAUNEY; ASSISTANT WARDEN DENIS BUSH,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (4:13-cv-01366-DCN-TER)

    Submitted:

    April 24, 2014

    Decided:

    April 29, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Douglas Dawson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Lisa Arlene
    Thomas, THOMPSON & HENRY, PA, Conway, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William
    courts

    order

    Douglas

    accepting

    Dawson,
    the

    Jr.,

    appeals

    recommendation

    of

    the
    the

    district
    magistrate

    judge and denying Dawsons request for a preliminary injunction.


    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Dawson v. Abston, No. 4:13-cv-01366-DCN-TER (D.S.C. Dec.

    12, 2013)
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like