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)
09-8249•Cecil Simmons v. DIRECTOR OZMINT; CAPTAIN BRIHART; DEBORAH ROWE, Hearing Officer; MR. BURTT
09-8249Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 25, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8249
CECIL SIMMONS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OZMINT; CAPTAIN BRIHART; DEBORAH ROWE, Hearing
Officer; MR. BURTT,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (6:08-cv-00860-RBH)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cecil Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,
Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Cecil Simmons appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Simmons’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Simmons v.
Ozmint, No. 6:08-cv-00860-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 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.