Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07458/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Bazzel
Appellee
Jonathan Bennett
Appellee
Robert D. Brooks
Appellant
Wade Byrd
Appellee
Michael Fowler
Appellee
Wantonta Golden
Appellee
Florence Mauney
Appellee
Jonathan Randell
Appellee
R. L. Turner
Appellee
Charles Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7458

ROBERT D. BROOKS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

WANTONTA GOLDEN, Correctional Officer; WADE

BYRD, Lieutenant; CHARLES WILLIAMS, Sergeant;

JONATHAN BENNETT, Sergeant; JONATHAN RANDELL,

Captain; FLORENCE MAUNEY, Captain; RICHARD

BAZZEL, Warden; MICHAEL FOWLER, Grievance

Clerk; R. L. TURNER, Disciplinary Hearing

Officer sued in their individual capacity

respectively, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (6:06-cv-01234)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert D. Brooks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 07-7458 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/06/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert D. Brooks appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. Brooks v. Golden,

No. 6:06-cv-01234 (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2007). We deny Brooks’ motions

for appointment of counsel and to file an amended complaint. 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: 07-7458 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/06/2008 Pg: 2 of 2