Valentine v. Nettles ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7234
    RANDY L. VALENTINE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THIERRY   D.    NETTLES,    Major    at    Lieber
    Correctional    Institution,    sued    in    his
    individual capacity; JOHN CUSACK, Doctor at
    Lieber Correctional Institution, sued in his
    individual capacity; JOHN DOES, Officers, sued
    in their individual capacities; JANE GARMANY,
    Nurse at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, sued in
    her individual capacity; ROBIN HANCOCK, Health
    Counsel, sued in her individual capacity;
    RICHARD    FRIERSON,     Doctor   at     Gilliam
    Psychiatric Hospital, sued in his individual
    capacity; BRIAN R. BLANTON, Doctor at Gilliam
    Psychiatric Hospital, sued in his individual
    capacity; JIM E. PAGE, Director-Hospital
    Administrator at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital,
    sued in his individual capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (4:06-cv-02314-HMH)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2007           Decided:   December 27, 2007
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se.   James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo,
    South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Randy L. Valentine appeals the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint.   We have reviewed
    the record and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm
    for the reasons stated by the district court.         Valentine v.
    Nettles, No. 4:06-cv-02314-HMH (D.S.C. July 19, 2007). 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7234

Filed Date: 12/27/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021