Slezak v. Glover

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 3, 2009
Docket08-8167
StatusUnpublished

This text of Slezak v. Glover (Slezak v. Glover) 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
Slezak v. Glover, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

Certiorari dismissed, January 11, 2010

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8167

GARY SLEZAK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAMUEL B. GLOVER, Director of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services in his individual and official capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA PROBATION, PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD, John and Jane Does in their official and individual capacities; JON OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections in his individual and official capacity; STANLEY BURT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution in his individual and official capacity; RAMNARINE JAGLAL, Dentist, in his individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:06-cv-01122-RBH)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Slezak, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Paul Woodington, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Gary Slezak appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Slezak

v. Glover, No. 4:06-cv-01122-RBH (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2008). 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)
Slezak v. Glover, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slezak-v-glover-ca4-2009.