Case ID: f-appx_635/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tyrone Lamar ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden Lee Corrections Institution; Lieutenant A. Davis; Ms. Fulton, Medical Health Care Provider RN; RN Ms. Judy Ra-bón; RN Ms. McDonald; J. McRee, MD, KCI Pharmacy; Juanita Moss, Food Service Supervisor; Ms. Bell, Food Service Supervisor; Ms. Norman, Food Service Supervisor; Ms. Anderson, Food Service Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Major James Dean; Lieutenant Ernest Mims; Sergeant B. Cook; Sergeant K. Arens; Ms. Kela E. Thomas, Commission of Probation Parole and Pardon Services Director; William Byars, Jr., SCDC Director, et al; South Carolina State Budget and Control Board Committee; William F. Marscher, III, SC Commission on Indigent Defense; Frederick M. Corley, Esquire; Randolph Murdaugh, III, Solicitor Attorney for the State; William T. Howell, Judge of the 14th Judicial Circuit Court of SC, Defendants.
    No. 15-7329.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2016.
    Decided: March 31, 2016.
    Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parker McLean, Clarke, Johnson, Peterson & McLean, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberson v. Padula, No. 2:13-cv-01872-RMG, 2015 WL 4487798 (D.S.C. July 22, 2015). In addition, we decline to address claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). 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.