Steven Barnes v. George Dedmondt, No. 09-8243 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8243 STEVEN LEWIS BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE DEDMONDT; BRAIN WILLIAMS; SHADELL STEVENS; MARCUS SMITH; POLLY HALL; A. DELL DOBEY; HEIDI PRESSLEY; RANDY DORAN; LT. KARREN JAGGERS, official and individual capacity, Defendants Appellees, and BRENDA B. CARPENTER, Defendant. No. 10-6113 STEVEN LEWIS BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEORGE DEDMONDT; BRAIN WILLIAMS; SHADELL STEVENS; MARCUS SMITH; POLLY HALL; A. DELL DOBEY; HEIDI PRESSLEY; RANDY DORAN; LT. KARREN JAGGERS, official and individual capacity, Defendants Appellees, and BRENDA B. CARPENTER; O-LEE STURKEY, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00002-MBS) Submitted: September 8, 2010 Decided: September 22, 2010 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Lewis Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Steven Lewis Barnes appeals the district court s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying reconsideration. Barnes also challenges several pretrial orders denying appointment of counsel, denying extensions of time for discovery and to object to the report and recommendation, and denying recusal of the magistrate judge. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Dedmondt, No. 4:08-cv-00002-MBS (D.S.C. Sept. 29 & Dec. 10, 2009). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.