Dr. Greg Battersby v. Dr. Joseph Carew ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1937
    DR. GREG BATTERSBY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    DR. JOSEPH CAREW, in his individual and official capacities;
    DR. RICHARD HEAVNER, in his individual and official
    capacities; DR. BRIAN HUGHES, in his individual and official
    capacities; DR. JEANNE MCDANIEL-GREEN, in her individual and
    official capacities; DR. JOHN MCGINNIS, in his individual
    and official capacities; DR. DAVID MRUZ, in his individual
    and official capacities; DR. RALPH ROLES, in his individual
    and   official  capacities;   DR.  HARVEY   GARCIA,  in  his
    individual and official capacities; E. J. MERCER, in his
    individual and official capacities; JOHN DOES 1-10,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.     Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (8:14-cv-00761-HMH)
    Submitted:   February 24, 2015                Decided:   May 5, 2015
    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bruce Fein, BRUCE FEIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., Washington, D.C.;
    Donald L. Smith, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Eugene H. Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A.,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Dr.    Greg    Battersby     appeals      the    district    court’s   order
    denying      relief   on   his    42    U.S.C.   § 1983    (2012)    complaint     by
    granting summary judgment for Defendants.                  We have reviewed the
    record and find no reversible error.               Accordingly, we affirm for
    the reasons stated by the district court.                   Battersby v. Carew,
    No. 8:14-cv-00761-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 2014).                    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1937

Filed Date: 5/5/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021