Daniel R. MCCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lefford FATE, et alia, Defendant-Appellee, Samuel Soltis, Assc Dir; John B. Tomarchio, Med Dir; Thomas Moore, Med Dir; John A. Davis, Med Dir; Anna Moak, Healthcare Authority (HCA); Janice Phillips, Admin Coord; Angela Hardin, ADA Coord; Warden Ralph Cothran; Warden Nolan; Warden Robe Rts; Assoc. Warden K. Sharp; Assc. Warden Bradshaw; Assc. Warden Dean; Dr. Way; Dr Sharp; Dr Bennett; Dr McRee; Dr Hughes; Dr Hedgepath; Dr Paul Drago; Dr Steen; Dr Bein or; Dr Kay; Dr McCray; Sally Blake, Nurse Practitioner; Salley, Nurse Practitioner; Olsen, Nurse Practitioner; Allen, Nurse Practitioner; Block, Nurse Practitioner; HCA Blackwell; HCA Huggins; HCA Pace; Warden Thomas; Dr Babbs; Warden Colie Rushton; Warden Leroy Cartledge; Assc Warden Kendell; Assc Warden Lewis; Warden Padula; Dr Pate; Dr Kirby; Dr Neville; Dr McFadden; Dr Blackwell; Dr Black; HCA Hodge; Dr Page; Dr Ellison; Dr Quesik; Warden White; Dr Valpey; Dr El Shamil; Dr Michael Kirby; Dr Herbot; Dr Alewine; Greco, Nurse Practitioner; Dr Langston; Dr Leventis; Barbara McKellar, Nurse Practitioner; HCA Thomas Boswell; Holly R. Pisarik, Director; Adrienne Youmans, Director; Mark Dorman, Assistant Deputy Director; Althea B. Myers, Inv; Dr James W Jarvis; Dr Hanns Brings; Dr Brennan; Dr Lucky; Dr Davis; Catherine Templeton, Director; Gloria Provost, Director; David Tatarsky, General Counsel; HCA Sarver; Dr Woods; Linda Dunlap, Defendants.
Decided: April 08, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Daniel R. McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN, DAVIS & HUGHES, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Daniel R. McClain appeals the district court's text order denying his post-judgment pro se motion to alter or amend judgment and his “Motion Re-asserted for the S.C. State Legislature, et al., As Defendants; and Motion For Injunction Order Re-asserted.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. McClain's motions failed to establish any valid basis for relief from the underlying order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny McClain's motions for injunctive relief pending appeal. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.