Court Opinion

ID: 9896285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:17.824432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.005674
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6673      Doc: 40         Filed: 11/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6673

        ANDRE SWEEPER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VERNETIA DOZIER; LIEUTENANT MATHIS; LIEUTENANT C. MURDOCK;
        LIEUTENANT RHODAN; SERGEANT T. TICE; SERGEANT BROWN;
        CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COPELAND; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER T.
        OWENS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BROWN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
        DAVIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CYNTHIA E. GREEN; CORRECTIONAL
        OFFICER RANDALL; MS. ANGIE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (1:20-cv-02545-SAL)

        Submitted: August 31, 2023                                   Decided: November 6, 2023

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, Ranee Saunders, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-
        BEST, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrew F. Lindemann,
        LINDEMANN & DAVIS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6673      Doc: 40        Filed: 11/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Andre Sweeper appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Sweeper’s

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint raising claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs and

        unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Upon review of the record, we discern no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

        Sweeper v. Dozier, No. 1:20-cv-02545-SAL (D.S.C. Jan. 21, 2022). 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

                                                    2