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)
23-6870•Anthony Shane Martin v. Erin Gaffney; Lisa Young; Ray Walker; Lenoka Gavin; Hodiyah Lewis; Jill Cardaron
23-6870Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 27, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6870
ANTHONY SHANE MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIN GAFFNEY; LISA YOUNG; RAY WALKER; LENOKA GAVIN;
HODIYAH LEWIS; JILL CARDARON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WELLPATH/CORRECT CARE,
Defendant.
No. 23-6875
ANTHONY SHANE MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORRECT CARE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS; ERIN GAFFNEY, Facility
Administrator; BRIAN DAVIS, Security Administrator; JARED ANDERSON,
Administrator; DOCTOR DUBIE, Facility Psychologist; GINA BRISSON, Vice
President,
Defendants - Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:22-cv-02042-HMH; 4:22-cv-
02043-HMH)
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Shane Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Quintin Atkinson, Mark Victor Gende,
SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Anthony Martin appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Martin’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Martin v. Gaffney, No. 4:22-cv-02042-
HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023); Martin v. Correct Care Recovery Solutions, No.
4:22-cv-02024-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023). 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.