Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07234/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian R. Blanton
Appellee
John Cusack
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Richard Frierson
Appellee
Jane Garmany
Appellee
Robin Hancock
Appellee
Thierry D. Nettles
Appellee
Jim E. Page
Appellee
Randy L. Valentine
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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.

Appeal: 07-7234 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7234 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 07-7234 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 3 of 3