Valentine v. Nettles
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
December 20, 2007
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. South Carolina, for Appellees.
James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed
Accordingly, we affirm Valentine v.
for the reasons stated by the district court.
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?