Stuart Tompkins v. Department of Correction, No. 12-6741 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6741 STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; J. N. VAUGHAN;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stuart Wayne Tompkins appeals the district court s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.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. (E.D.N.C. June 13, 2011 & Mar. 21, 2012). motion to file a supplemental brief, 5:10-ct-03224-BO We grant Tompkins 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

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.