Court Opinion

ID: 9404398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:37.532332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.571198
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6142      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6142

        FRED FREEMAN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN KINDAL; NURSE DELEON, HTC; DR. MCREE; MS. RINGOLD,
        PRN; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (9:21-cv-02199-SAL)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                           Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Fred Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski,
        HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6142      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Fred Freeman appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the

        magistrate judge, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing his

        civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order. Freeman v. Warden Kindal, No. 9:21-cv-02199-SAL (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2023).

        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