Gary L. Wise v. JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7956
GARY L. WISE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of
Corrections, individually and in their official capacities;
GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional
Institution TCI, individually and in their official
capacities; MS. BRADSHAW, Associate Warden, individually and
in their official capacities; MS. COTHRAN, Associate Warden,
individually and in their official capacities; BILLY
HOLIDAY, Law Library Clerk, individually and in their
official capacities; GENELL HAM, Ms., Computer Teacher,
individually and in their official capacities; KENNETH
RAINWATER, Formal IGC, individually and in their official
capacities; MS. HODGE, Mailroom Clerk, individually and in
their official capacities; MS. KIRBY, Mailroom Clerk,
individually and in their official capacities; MAJOR SHARP;
ANGELA BROWN; OFFICER GOODEL,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:09-cv-00153-HFF)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Gary L. Wise, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, NESS &
JETT, LLC, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Gary L. Wise appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant
Defendants summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
claims against them. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Wise v. Ozmint, 6:09-cv-00153-HFF (D.S.C. Oct. 6,
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

-- 3 of 3 --