Freeman v. Ozmint
This text of Freeman v. Ozmint (Freeman v. Ozmint) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7691
FRED FREEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JONATHAN E. OZMINT, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; WARDEN BAZZLE; MUHAAWAHA, Case Worker; OLSON; JOHN DOE, Medical Director; AMY ENLOE,
Defendants -Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-04-22832)
Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Fred Freeman appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Freeman v. Ozmint, No.
CA-04-22832 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2005). We deny Freeman’s motion for
appointment of counsel. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Freeman v. Ozmint, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-ozmint-ca4-2006.