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)
18-6203•Curtis Richardson, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale Richardson v. D. S. WILKES, Medical Staff Supervisor of Darlington County Detention Center
18-6203Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 20, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6203
CURTIS RICHARDSON, a/k/a Curtis D. Richardson, a/k/a Curtis Dale
Richardson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. S. WILKES, Medical Staff Supervisor of Darlington County Detention Center,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
WILL DUNCAN, Horry County Policeman; HORRY COUNTY POLICEMAN,
Name Unknown; BRIAN DOYLE, Doyles Wrecker Service; DENNIS PHELPS,
Horry County Magistrate; KAYMANI DANIELS WEST, US Magistrate;
SUPERVISOR OF U.S. MARSHALS, Name Unknown of the Florence Division
Office; WILLIAM FLETCHER NETTLES, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:16-cv-00835-RBH)
Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Curtis Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Richardson appeals the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Richardson’s motion for default
judgment for $5,000 rather than $10,000 as alleged in Richardson’s 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. Richardson v. Wilkes,
No. 4:16-cv-00835-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 2018 & Mar. 23, 2018). 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.