Olandio Workman v. Scotty Bodiford, No. 19-6083 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6083 OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTTY BODIFORD, Jail Administrator individual capacity official capacity; MAJOR STOWERS, individual capacity official capacity; JIMMY THOMPSON, Mail Room Supervisor individual capacity official capacity; SERGEANT BOWMAN, individual capacity official capacity; OFFICER JENNINGS, individual capacity official capacity; OFFICER SHOKLLY, individual capacity official capacity; OFFICER COLLIER, individual capacity official capacity, Defendants - Appellees, and JOSEPH KERNELL, Greenville County Administrator individual capacity official capacity; JOHN VANDERMOSTEN, Interim Assistance County Administrator individual capacity official capacity; ENNIS FANT, individual capacity official capacity; WILLIS MEADOWS, individual capacity official capacity; LYNN BALLARD, individual capacity official capacity; JOE DILL, individual capacity official capacity; BUTCH KIRVENY, individual capacity official capacity; SID CATES, individual capacity official capacity; RICK ROBERT, individual capacity official capacity; FRED PAYNE, individual capacity official capacity; XANTHENE NORRIS, individual capacity official capacity; LIZ SEMAN, individual capacity official capacity; BOB TAYLOR, individual capacity official capacity; GREENVILLE COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (6:18-cv-00355-RBH) Submitted: May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se. Carly Davis, Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Olandio Ray Workman appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Workman v. Bodiford, No. 6:18-cv-00355-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2018 & Dec. 28, 2018). We dispense with 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.
