David Stevens v. Hampton, U Nurse of the Medical Department for the Central Correctional Institution, Both Individually and Officially

Fourth Circuit

David Stevens v. Hampton, U Nurse of the Medical Department for the Central Correctional Institution, Both Individually and Officially

72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39612, 1995 WL 734440

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1995

Docket95-7448

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.3d 128 (David Stevens v. Hampton, U Nurse of the Medical Department for the Central Correctional Institution, Both Individually and Officially) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Stevens v. Hampton, U Nurse of the Medical Department for the Central Correctional Institution, Both Individually and Officially, 72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39612, 1995 WL 734440 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

David STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAMPTON,^U Nurse of the Medical Department
for the Central Correctional Institution, both
individually and officially, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-7448.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-2597-3-17BD).

David Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson II, Elizabeth Newell Keenan, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON, SIMS, MORRISON & SOJOURNER, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) 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. Stevens v. Hampton, No. CA-93-2597-3-17BD (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 1995). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

72 F.3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

David STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAMPTON,^U Nurse of the Medical Department
for the Central Correctional Institution, both
individually and officially, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-7448.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 1995.
Decided Dec. 12, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-2597-3-17BD).

David Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson II, Elizabeth Newell Keenan, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON, SIMS, MORRISON & SOJOURNER, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) 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. Stevens v. Hampton, No. CA-93-2597-3-17BD (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 1995). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F.3d 128, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39612, 1995 WL 734440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-stevens-v-hampton-u-nurse-of-the-medical-dep-ca4-1995.