Harrison v. Moteka

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 8, 2007
• Docket: 07-6346
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6346

EUGENE HARRISON, a/k/a Eugene Paul Harrison,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MOTEKA, a/k/a Thomas Motycka, Doctor, individually and in his official capacity; LEON JOYNER, Director of Physicians Health Services, individually and in his official capacity; ARAMARK'S FOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR AND EMPLOYEES; DIETICIANS, individually and in their official capacities; BOB CEEFFERS, Supervisor; OFFICER JARVIS, Alvin S. Detention Center Officer, individually and in his official capacity; LIEUTENANT BURROUGH, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER DUKES, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER HYDRICK, individually and in his official capacity; OFFICER CHANCE, individually and in his official capacity; NURSE NIKKI, Physicians Health Services Nurse, individually and in her official capacity; NURSE SHERRY, individually and in her official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

MS. BAKER,

Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (9:06-cv-01203-PMD)

Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 8, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. John K. Blincow, Jr., Ashley S. Heslop, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; Joseph DuRant Thompson, III, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Eugene Harrison 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. Harrison v. Moteka,

No. 9:06-cv-01203-PMD (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 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 -