Court Opinion

ID: 9374781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:01:09.622603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.010087
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7041       Doc: 8         Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7041

        BILLY D. MORRISON, a/k/a Billy Devar Morrison, Jr.,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        NURSE D. CAPPADONIA,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        LEE INFIRMARY; DR. J MCCREE; DR. J. PATE; NURSE S. BLACKWELL; JULIE
        POWELL, Nursing Supervisor; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
        CORRECTIONS,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:19-cv-02171-TMC)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                   Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7041      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        Billy D. Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7041      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Billy D. Morrison appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendant Cappadonia on

        Morrison’s deliberate indifference claim raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. ∗ Accordingly, we affirm. Morrison v.

        S.C.D.C., No. 4:19-cv-02171-TMC (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 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

               ∗
                Although we conclude that Morrison’s objections to the final magistrate judge’s
        report were not entirely nonspecific as to all claims, his preserved claims are without merit.

                                                      3