UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6456
WILLIAM CLAYTON MCKINNEDY, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MRS. CECIL REYNOLDS, Warden at Kershaw Correctional
Institution and et al.; MR. ROBERT E. WARD, a/k/a Bob Ward;
JON OZMINT; MARK SANFORD; MIKE FAIR; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER;
MS. MARY COLEMAN; MS. SANDRA BOWIE; MS. A. HARDIN; MRS. A.
SELLERS; JEROME ARMSTRONG; MR. SYLVESTA ROBINSON,
Investigator; JAMES WAKELEY; BECKWITH, NFN; JAMES BAYTES;
ROBERT HUGGINS, a/k/a Bob Huggins; JERRY WASHINGTON; T.
SMITH; MRS. PRICE, Contraband Sgt of Palmetto; SEWARD; NFN
DUBOSE; PATRICIA CAUDLE, Officer at Medical; DAVID M.
TATARSKY; ROBERT WESLEY JACOBS; OSCAR FAULKENBERRY; CAPTAIN
THOMAS, Kershaw Correctional Institution; DANIEL J. MURPHY,
Inspector General of SCDC; LINDA J. MARTIN, OPNS, Secretary
General Counsel, SCDC’s headquarters; DENNIS PATTERSON, SCDC
General Counsel Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cv-03169-HMH)
Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Clayton McKinnedy, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
William Clayton McKinnedy, III, appeals the district
court’s orders substantially accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. ∗ We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. McKinnedy v. Reynolds, No. 6:08-cv-03169-HMH (D.S.C.
Feb. 5, 2010). We deny McKinnedy’s motion for appointment of
counsel and 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
∗
Because the case was dismissed on summary judgment, the
district court did not adopt the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to count the dismissal as a “strike” for purposes
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006).
3