UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6741
STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; J. N. VAUGHAN; OFFICER HUNT; BILL
CARROL; OFFICER BARBER; SERGEANT MASON; ROBERT C. LEWIS;
ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.; BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE; NANCY B. CRITES;
OFFICER SEALS; OFFICER THOMPSON; OFFICER JONES; ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT HUNT; PAUL TAYLOR; SANDRA THOMAS; SUPERVISOR
TROUBLEFIELD; J. HAYNES, Superintendent; LYNN HENRY;
JOHN/JANE DOE, Supervisor in Mailroom; OFFICER MEDLIN; K.
DUFAULT; CONNIE BRAY; K. LOCKLEAR; KIMBLE, Medical PDI;
NURSE SUPERVISOR COLDSMITH; JANE DOE, Nurse at Lumberton
Correctional Institution; JOHN/JANE DOE, Medical
Administrator; DOCTOR DAVIS; JOHN/JANE DOE, Doctor; JOHN
DOE, Lieutenant; JOHN/JANE DOE, Director of Support Service;
BOYD BENNETT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-ct-03224-BO)
Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Martin
Rossie Jernigan, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Kelly Elizabeth
Street, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stuart Wayne Tompkins appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Tompkins v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:10-ct-03224-BO
(E.D.N.C. June 13, 2011 & Mar. 21, 2012). We grant Tompkins’
motion to file a supplemental brief, deny his 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
3