Thomas Fair, Jr. v. Jon Ozmint, No. 11-6656 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6656 THOMAS MARVIN FAIR, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JON E. OZMINT, Director for the South Carolina Department of Corrections; ROBERT E. WARD, Division Director of Operations for the South Carolina Department of Corrections; JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., Operations Coordinator of the South Carolina Department of Corrections and the rest of the Prison Rape Elimination Act Review Committee et al; ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution; C. YORK, Classification Caseworker at Lee Correctional Institution; BRUCE OBERMAN, Special Management Unit Administrator at Lee Correctional Institution; ANTHONY DAVIS, Lieutenant at Lee Correctional Institution; R. HILTON, Classification Caseworker at Lee Correctional Institution all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:10-cv-01268-RMG) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. October 5, 2011 Thomas Marvin Fair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Marvin Fair, Jr., appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fair v. Ozmint, No. 6:10-cv-01268-RMG (D.S.C. May 2, 2011). We deny Fair s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.