Terrance Haggins v. Burt, No. 08-6464 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6464 TERRANCE T. HAGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BURT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; BOYD, Lieber Correctional Institution, in her individual capacity; DEBORAH ROWE, Lieber Correctional Institution, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, in her individual capacity; FRANKLIN E. JONES; FULLER, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; CHARLES RODGERS, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity; JENKINS, Lieber Correctional Institution Grievance Coordinator, in her individual capacity; WILLIAMS, Officer, Lieber Correctional Institution, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:07-cv-00931-HMH) Submitted: June 11, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance T. Haggins, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Jacqueline Gottfried Grau, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Terrance T. Haggins, a South Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Haggins v. Burt, No. 4:07-cv-00931-HMH (D.S.C. March 12, 2008). motion for appointment of counsel. We also deny Haggins We 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 -

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.