Williams v. Gintoli

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 2004
Docket04-6497
StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams v. Gintoli (Williams v. Gintoli) 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
Williams v. Gintoli, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6497

DANNY G. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE P. GINTOLI, Director of South Carolina Department of Mental Health (SCDMH); W. RUSSELL HUGHES, Doctor and CEO of the Behavior Disorders Treatment Program (BDTP); BRENDA E. YOUNG-RICE, Program Manager for BDTP; ELIZABETH HALL, Division Director of Public Safety; DOUG COCHRAN, JD, Director of Client Advocacy; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,

Defendants - Appellees,

---------------------------------------------

LEONARD A. SMITH,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-1102-9-24)

Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny G. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, Sheally Venus Poe, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Danny G. Williams appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on 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 Williams v.

Gintoli, No. CA-03-1102-9-24 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2004). 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)
Williams v. Gintoli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-gintoli-ca4-2004.