Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
03-7935•Luxurious X, a/k/a Timothy Lloyd v. BARTON VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel of SCDC
03-7935Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit04.05.2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7935
LUXURIOUS X, a/k/a Timothy Lloyd,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BARTON VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel of
SCDC; JOSEPH COUNTS, Associate Warden of Tyger
River Correctional Institution; BARNEY LOYD,
Associate Warden; HERB JOHNS, Institutional
Grievance Coordinator; PAUL BREWTON, Major;
PERNELL CROMER, Captain; BILLY LAUGHTER,
Lieutenant; MIKE GREGORY, Sergeant; WILEY
BAKER, Classification Caseworker; MEMBERS OF
TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION LOWER
YARD INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE ON
AUGUST 21, 2001,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-4419-6)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Luxurious X, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald
Patrick Tinsley, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON,
Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Luxurious X appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider the dismissal of 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 Luxurious X v. Vincent, No. CA-01-4419-6
(D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2003). 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 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.