Lloyd v. Vincent

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lloyd v. Vincent. Read the opinion of the Court — 121 F. App'x 531
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 16, 2005·No. 04-7715·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7715

TIMOTHY LLOYD, a/k/a Luxurious X,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BARTON VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel; JUDY C. ANDERSON, Director of Program Services; RICHARD E. SMITH, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; JOSEPH COUNTS, Associate Warden; HERB JOHNS, Institution Grievance Coordinator; DEBBIE N. MANESS, Mailroom Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-1546-4)

Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. William Benson Darwin, Jr., HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lloyd 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 Lloyd v.

Vincent, No. CA-03-1546-4 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2004). 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

Lloyd v. Vincent, (4th Cir. 2005).

Lloyd v. Vincent (Lloyd v. Vincent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related