Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07558/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Troy Luke Burks
Appellant
Scott Lewis
Appellee
Colie Rushton
Appellee
Pam Smith
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7558

TROY LUKE BURKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLIE RUSHTON, Unit Warden; PAM SMITH, Mail Clerk; SCOTT 

LEWIS, Unit Major, sued in their official and individual 

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-03025-HMH)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Luke Burks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, 

MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7558 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Luke Burks appeals the district court’s orders: 

(1) denying his motions to alter or amend judgment, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e) and for a temporary restraining order and (2) adopting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Burks v. Rushton, No. 

3:08-cv-03025-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2009). We deny Burks’ 

motions to appoint counsel, for stay pending appeal, for 

injunctive relief pending appeal, to stay the mandate and for 

reconsideration of prior order deferring action on his original 

motion for appointment of counsel. Burks v. Rushton, No. 3:08-

cv-03025-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 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: 09-7558 Doc: 36 Filed: 03/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 2