James Strong v. Tyrone Murray, No. 08-8017 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8017 JAMES STRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TYRONE MURRAY, South Carolina Department of Corrections employee; SAM DUCKETT, South Carolina Department of Corrections employee; PHILLIP ADAMS, South Carolina Department of Corrections employee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:03-cv-02256-MBS) Submitted: November 3, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Kathy Anne Rice, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Strong appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) complaint. judgment, the district court referenced In its final its prior orders granting the Defendants motion for summary judgment in part, and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants in accordance with the jury s verdict on the remaining claims. We have reviewed the record and Strong s claims challenging the partial grant of summary judgment and find no reversible error. Next, we have considered Strong s claims regarding the jury trial and conclude that they are without merit. We will reverse a jury s verdict only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury s conclusions. Sherrill White Constr., Inc. v. South Carolina Nat l Bank, 713 F.2d 1047, 1050 (4th Cir. 1983). Further, in reviewing the jury s verdict, we do not weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). Because the Defendants complete jury clearly witnesses, absence of believed Strong cannot probative facts the testimony show that to support there of the was a the jury s court s order. verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the district Strong v. Murray, No. 2:03-cv-02256-MBS (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2008). 2 We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before contentions the court are 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.
