Sturkey v. Ozmint

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 15, 2009
Docket08-8198
StatusUnpublished

This text of Sturkey v. Ozmint (Sturkey v. Ozmint) 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
Sturkey v. Ozmint, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8198

WILLIE JOE STURKEY, a/k/a Willie Sturkey, a/k/a Willie J. Sturkey,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN MCKIE, Kirkland Correctional Center; WARDEN RILEY, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MAJOR LATTA, Kirkland Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT BATES, Tyger River Correctional Institution; LIEUTENANT BALL, Kirkland Correctional Institution; R. L. TURNER, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MIKE FOWLER, Tyger River Correctional Institution; MS. MIDDLEBROOK, Tyger River Correctional Institution, in their official and individual capacity,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (8:07-cv-03296-MBS)

Submitted: May 26, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Joe Sturkey, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Willie Joe Sturkey appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. See

Sturkey v. Ozmint, No. 8:07-cv-03296-MBS (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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)
Sturkey v. Ozmint, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturkey-v-ozmint-ca4-2009.