Sweat v. Cook
This text of Sweat v. Cook (Sweat v. Cook) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6595
REGINALD C. SWEAT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DORRIS COOK, Head Nurse, Individual and Official Capacity; HARRY MCKENN, Dr., Individual and Official Capacity,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (9:09-cv-01255-HFF)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald C. Sweat, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Reginald C. Sweat appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
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. Sweat v. Cook,
No. 9:09-cv-01255-HFF (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2010). We deny Sweat’s
motion to appoint counsel and 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
Sweat v. Cook, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweat-v-cook-ca4-2010.