Thomas Fair, Jr. v. Jon Ozmint, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6656

THOMAS MARVIN FAIR, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JON E. OZMINT, Director for the South Carolina Department of

Corrections; ROBERT E. WARD, Division Director of Operations for

the South Carolina Department of Corrections; JAMES E. SLIGH,

JR., Operations Coordinator of the South Carolina Department of

Corrections and the rest of the Prison Rape Elimination Act

Review Committee et al; ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden of Lee

Correctional Institution; C. YORK, Classification Caseworker at

Lee Correctional Institution; BRUCE OBERMAN, Special Management

Unit Administrator at Lee Correctional Institution; ANTHONY

DAVIS, Lieutenant at Lee Correctional Institution; R. HILTON,

Classification Caseworker at Lee Correctional Institution all in

their individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District

Judge. (6:10-cv-01268-RMG)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Marvin Fair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Marvin Fair, Jr., appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fair v. Ozmint, No. 6:10-cv-01268-RMG (D.S.C. May 2, 2011). We deny Fair's motion for appointment of counsel and 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