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)
19-6308•William Devon Dickey v. Scdc
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6308
WILLIAM DEVON DICKEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCDC; WARDEN COHEN; NURSE WITE; OFFICER HARRIS; DOCTOR
LEMON; NURSE GRIMES; NURSE SIMMONS; LIEUTENANT MAZE;
LIEUTENANT BRYANT; SERGEANT DEVIN WILLIAMS; DOCTOR
ROBERTS, Optical Lab,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
EYE CLINIC,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (9:17-cv-02194-DCC)
Submitted: May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
William Devon Dickey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Charles Tanner, MICHAEL C.
TANNER LAW OFFICE, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
William Devon Dickey 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. Dickey v. SCDC,
No. 9:17-cv-02194-DCC (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 2019). We deny Dickey’s motions for
appointment of counsel and motion to strike. 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.