Darren Simmons v. Shelley Stokes, No. 12-7322 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7322 DARREN SIMMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROLAND MCFADDEN, Warden; ROBIN CHAVIS; AMY SMITH, RN Nurse; MS. FOX, a/k/a Michelle D. Fox, Mental Health Services; WILLIAM BYARS, SCDC Director of Prisons; REDFERN MILLER, Grievance Cord; WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; SHELLEY STOKES, Nurse; WILLIAM BRADHAM, MD; MARTIN DOMMERS, MD; PAUL C. DRAGO, MD; DOCTOR SAMPSON, MD; NURSE RAINWATER, a/k/a Amy Rainwater; MS. MARTIN; MS. ROMAN, Nurse; JAKES SPIRES, Nurse; MS. WILLIAMS, Nurse; MS. SPIVEYS, Nurse RN; MS. JACOBS, Correctional Officer; MORTON KELLEY, Nurse; KWAJALEIN C. MUHAMMAD, McCormick C.I. Nurse; DONICA K. JENKINS, Evand C.I. Records Analyst I, Defendants Appellees, and HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS; ROBERT SCHULZE, JR., MD; JENNIFER A. FELDMAN, MD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00175-RMG) Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darren Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Shelton Webber Haile, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Darren Simmons appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his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. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the We have Accordingly, district court. Simmons v. Stokes, No. 5:11-cv-00175-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 1, 2012). Simmons motion denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court for a transcript are adequately and argument at Government presented would not in aid expense the the is materials 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.