Haynesworth v. SC Dep't of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 30, 2010
• Docket: 10-6717
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6717

ALPHONSO HAYNESWORTH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL LAUBSHIRE; ROBERT WARD; JON OZMINT; WILLIE EAGLETON; REDFEARN MILLER; ANNIE SELLARS; BEVERLY BAKER; ANTHONY WHILTINGTON; PAMELA D. MCDOWELL; OFFICER DRIGGERS; OFFICER JOSEPH; G. ROGERS, Captain; K. LEAR, Sergeant; SERGEANT THOMAS; MS. THOMAS; A. GRAVES; B. MILLER, Mrs.,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:10-cv-00507-CMC)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006)

complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Haynesworth v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:10-

cv-00507-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2010). We deny Haynesworth’s

motion for an order to show cause and 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

* The district court’s order is a final, appealable order. See Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir. 2005).