Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07897/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07897-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7897

ALPHONSO HAYNESWORTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, 

Director of SCDC; WARDEN BOB ANDERSON; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NFN 

BRILLFORD; MAJOR NFN MURRAY; CAPTAIN EDWARD BITTINGER; 

LIEUTENANT NFN BRACHEL; SERGEANT NFN FERGUSON; OFFICER NFN 

FOREMAN; SERGEANT NFN HOOSIER; MS. NFN HUNTER; OFFICER 

JENKINS; OFFICER JONES; DHO S. PATTERSON; MS. NFN HUNTER, 

Law Librarian; OFFICER NFN STAATS; OFFICER NFN UPTERGRAFF; 

MR. NFN STEVENSON, Classification; CAPTAIN B. HINGER; 

OFFICER UPTAGRAFT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (8:08-cv-01841-PMD)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. Heath McAlvin Stewart, 

III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Appeal: 09-7897 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7897 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 (2006) 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Haynesworth v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., 

No. 8:08-cv-01841-PMD (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2009). 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

Appeal: 09-7897 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3