McFadden v. Alwine

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 6, 2006
Docket05-7448
StatusUnpublished

This text of McFadden v. Alwine (McFadden v. Alwine) 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
McFadden v. Alwine, (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7448

BERNARD MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GLENN ALWINE, SCDC Medical Board Director; JOHN A. DAVIS; LISA PARNELL, Head nurse Wateree Correctional Institution; CHARLETTE GRECO, Practitioner Wateree Correctional Institution, in their official, individual, or personal capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-04-2421-3)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Lee, Benjamin Albert Baroody, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order

adopting the report and recommendation of magistrate judge and

denying relief on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See McFadden v. Allen, No. CA-04-2421-3 (D.S.C. Aug. 3,

2005; Aug. 5, 2005). We deny as moot McFadden’s motion to compel

the district court to file three affidavits, because the affidavits

are included in the district court’s record as attachments to

McFadden’s Motion in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

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

- 2 -

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McFadden v. Alwine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-alwine-ca4-2006.