The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Haynesworth v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Haynesworth v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections

09-78970 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7897...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7897...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7897

ALPHONSO HAYNESWORTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN BOB ANDERSON; ASSOCIATE WARDEN NFN BRILLFORD; MAJOR NFN MURRAY; CAPTAIN EDWARD BITTINGER; LIEUTENANT NFN BRACHEL; SERGEANT NFN FERGUSON; OFFICER NFN FOREMAN; SERGEANT NFN HOOSIER; MS. NFN HUNTER; OFFICER JENKINS; OFFICER JONES; DHO S. PATTERSON; MS. NFN HUNTER, Law Librarian; OFFICER NFN STAATS; OFFICER NFN UPTERGRAFF; MR. NFN STEVENSON, Classification; CAPTAIN B. HINGER; OFFICER UPTAGRAFT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-01841-PMD)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 (2006)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Haynesworth v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr.,

No. 8:08-cv-01841-PMD (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2009). 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

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap