# Eugene Harrison v. T. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 25, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/798663

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 25, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/798663

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1142

EUGENE P. HARRISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

T. BROWN, Sergeant, Detective, Taevor; ROBERT BURNISH,
Sergeant; JERRY KELLY, Corporal; SIMON MAJOR, Sumter Lee
Detention Center President; JON OZMINT, South Carolina
Department of Correction,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; SUMTER LEE DETENTION
CENTER; SCDC COMMISSIONER; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-02642-RMG)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam.
Eugene P. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel
Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina, Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Eugene P. Harrison 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. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Harrison v. Brown, No. 3:10-cv-02642-RMG (D.S.C.

Jan. 24, 2012). We 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/798663. Public record. Not legal advice.