Stuart Tompkins v. Joel Herron, No. 12-7210 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7210 STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOEL HERRON, Correctional Administrator; KRISTIE B. STANBACK, Assist. Superintendent; GERALDUNE O. LEWIS; JOHN DOE LOWERY, Sergant Over Mailroom; JOHN DOE INGRAM, Mailroom Staff; JANE DOE NORTON, Mailroom Staff; JANE DOE NORRIS, Mailroom Staff; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Director of Prison; ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR., Secretary of Correction; BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE, Governor s; JAMES C. FRYE, Program Manager; JOHN DOE COVINGTON, Unit Manager; JANE DOE ALFORD, Assistant Unit Manager; MARRIETTA BARR, Ex-Assistant Manager (Now Lieutenant); CHANDRA K. RANSOM, a/k/a Jane Doe, Ex-Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00978-TDS-LPA) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: November 27, 2012 and SHEDD Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. and FLOYD, Circuit Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, Appellees. Peter Andrew Regulski, North Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stuart Wayne Tompkins appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) denying his motions for reconsideration. record and find no reversible error. complaint and We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tompkins v. Herron, No 1:10-cv-00978-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 30, & July 11, 2012). Tompkins motion dispense with for oral appointment argument of counsel because the is denied. 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.