Benninger v. Patel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2001
• Docket: 01-6775
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6775

MICHAEL LEE BENNINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR PATEL; DOCTOR MOORE, Sick Call; MR. DAVIS, Medical Records; NURSE WHITE, TB Nurse; NURSE JONES; ROLAND MCFADDEN, Assistant Warden; LANE CRIBB, Sheriff; MICHAEL SCHWARTZ; JANE DOE, I, Nurse; JANE DOE, II, Nurse; JOHN DOE, I, Doctor; JOHN DOE, II, Doctor; JANE DOE, Doctor; EASTERN HEALTHCARE GROUP, INCOR- PORATED; CAPTAIN WATKINS; JOHN DOE, Dentist,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-2812-6-13AK, CA-00-3133-6-13AK)

Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 5, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Benninger, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., John Eric Fulda, Irmo, South Carolina; Alexia Pittas-Giroux, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; Danny Calvert Crowe, Ronald Hawthorne Barrett, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; William Walter Doar, Jr., MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Benninger appeals the district court’s order deny-

ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Benninger v. Patel, Nos. CA-00-2812-6-13AK; CA-00-

3133-6-13AK (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2001). We deny Appellees’ motions to

dismiss the appeal and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED