Luxurious X v. Vincent

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 2004
Docket03-7935
StatusUnpublished

This text of Luxurious X v. Vincent (Luxurious X v. Vincent) 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
Luxurious X v. Vincent, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7935

LUXURIOUS X, a/k/a Timothy Lloyd,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BARTON VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel of SCDC; JOSEPH COUNTS, Associate Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; BARNEY LOYD, Associate Warden; HERB JOHNS, Institutional Grievance Coordinator; PAUL BREWTON, Major; PERNELL CROMER, Captain; BILLY LAUGHTER, Lieutenant; MIKE GREGORY, Sergeant; WILEY BAKER, Classification Caseworker; MEMBERS OF TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION LOWER YARD INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 21, 2001,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-4419-6)

Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luxurious X, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald Patrick Tinsley, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Luxurious X appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to reconsider the dismissal of 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 Luxurious X v. Vincent, No. CA-01-4419-6

(D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2003). 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)
Luxurious X v. Vincent, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luxurious-x-v-vincent-ca4-2004.