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)
09-7699•Michael T. Stephens v. Gary Kubic
09-7699Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 22, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7699
MICHAEL T. STEPHENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GARY KUBIC; PHILIP A. FOOT; CHARLES ALLEN; JO ANN DEBOE;
CHARLES BUSH, Doctor; NURSE HOLDEN; NURSE CARLISLE; SUSAN
FOOT; PAROLE AGENT ROWELL; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS
INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:08-cv-00329-CMC)
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael T. Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Hodges Waldron,
Jr., GRIFFITH & SADLER, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina; Elliott T.
Halio, HALIO & HALIO, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Stephens appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny Stephens’s motion for appointment of
counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Stephens v. Kubic, No. 4:08-cv-00329-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2009).
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.