Jones v. Phillips

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 12, 2005
Docket04-7936
StatusUnpublished

This text of Jones v. Phillips (Jones v. Phillips) 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
Jones v. Phillips, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7936

MICHAEL L. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JANICE PHILLIPS, head of medical at South Carolina Department of Corrections; MEDICAL STAFF, at Manning Correctional Institution; MEDICAL STAFF, at Lee Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 04-7955

JANICE PHILLIPS, head of medical at South Carolina Department of Corrections; MEDICAL STAFF, at Manning Correctional Institution; MEDICAL STAFF, at Lee Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-3203-3)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Jones 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 Jones v.

Phillips, No. CA-03-3203-3 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2004). Jones’ motion

for appointment of counsel is denied. 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

- 3 -

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jones v. Phillips, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-phillips-ca4-2005.