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)
14-6542•Duncan Lamarr Burress v. TIMOTHY PERKINS, Correctional Officer II
14-6542Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 29, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6542
DUNCAN LAMARR BURRESS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY PERKINS, Correctional Officer II; JOSHUA HYPES,
Correctional Officer; JEREMY ARBOGAST, Correctional Officer;
CHAD SISK, Correctional Officer; JESSE FOSTER, Correctional
Officer; CHARLES LEGG, Correctional Officer, Lieutenant
Shift Commander for Quilliams II; PAUL PARRY, Assistant
Warden Security; DAVID BALLARD, Warden; GARY HINTE,
Investigator Intelligence Officer; JOHNATHAN FRAME,
Institutional Investigator; CURTIS DIXON, Sergeant,
Institutional Investigator; ROBERT RHODES, Major, Chief
Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-01970)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duncan Lamarr Burress, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly M. Bandy,
Natalie C. Schaefer, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC,
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Duncan Lamarr Burress appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Burress v. Perkins, No. 2:13-cv-01970 (S.D.W. Va. Mar.
20, 2014; Mar. 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.