Henderson v. Liggin

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 18, 2008
Docket08-6613
StatusUnpublished

This text of Henderson v. Liggin (Henderson v. Liggin) 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
Henderson v. Liggin, (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6613

LAMONT HENDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

P. LIGGIN, Federal Correctional Officer, in his individual and official capacity; WARDEN JOHN J. LAMANNA, in his individual and official capacity; OFFICER R. C. MCLAFFERTY, SIA, in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00227-CMC)

Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Vinton D. Lide, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; David Leon Morrison, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Lamont Henderson appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Henderson v. Liggin, No. 3:07-cv-00227-CMC (D.S.C. Apr.

11, 2008). We further deny Henderson’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

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Henderson v. Liggin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-liggin-ca4-2008.