The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-7580•Lamont Henderson v. P. LIGGIN, Federal Correctional Officer, in his individual
07-7580Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 28, 2008
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6613
LAMONT HENDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
P. LIGGIN, Federal Correctional Officer, in his individual
and official capacity; WARDEN JOHN J. LAMANNA, in his
individual and official capacity; OFFICER R. C. MCLAFFERTY,
SIA, in his individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-00227-CMC)
Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamont Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Vinton D. Lide, LIDE & PAULEY, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina;
David Leon Morrison, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Henderson appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Henderson v. Liggin, No. 3:07-cv-00227-CMC (D.S.C. Apr.
11, 2008). We further deny Henderson’s motion for appointment
of counsel. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.