Benjamin Nabors v. Timmons, No. 13-6585 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6585 BENJAMIN RAY NABORS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPUTY TIMMONS; DEPUTY GARRISON; SGT. KURTA; INVESTIGATOR R. PLAXICO, ID #2022 Investigator LCSD; SHERIFF RICKY CHASTAIN, LCSD; LT. BRIAN K. BRIDGES, LCSD Narcotics Officer; SGT. JUSTIN R. MOODY, LCSD Narcotics Officer; MAJOR HUDSON, LCDC; LT. LINDA SULLIVAN, LCDC; JUDGE W. COPELAND, Laurens County Magistrates Office Laurens County; LT. MARENO FOGGIE, LCSD Investigator; LCSD DEPUTY JAMIE LEE EDWARDS; CAPT. STEPHEN WILLIAMS, LCSD Capt over Narcotics Officers LCSD; DEPUTY MATTHEW A. VEAL; DEPUTY RHODES; LT. MARTY CRAIN; CAPT. MICHAEL COATS, LCSD; ATTORNEY CAROLINE HORLBECK, of Greenville Bar SC; LAURENS COUNTY, SC; ALEX STALVEY, Attorney at Law SC Bar #71739; YATES BROWN, Jr. SC Bar #78607; JERRY W. PEACE, 8th Circuit Solicitor s Office Greenwood SC; PAUL PAGE, LCSD Narcotics Officer; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Laurens Counties Office Branch Director Capt SLED; SC ATTORNEY GENERAL SALLEY WOOD ELLIOTT; MS. ELIZABETH PATTERSON WIYGUL, SC Bar #70785; MR. L. CRAINE, PP of LCL; BILL MAYOR, Attorney SC Bar; CHIP HOWELL, Attorney SC Bar; MIKE TURNER, JR., Attorney SC Bar; SGT. JOHN BRAGG, LCDC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:12-cv-03301-DCN) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Ray Nabors, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin Ray Nabors appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Nabor s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nabors v. Timmons, No. 0:12- cv-03301-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 25 & 26, 2013). We deny the pending motions with to appoint counsel. We dispense oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.