Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07001/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Budget Control

Financial Division
Appellee
Medical Division
Appellee
Jon Ozmint
Appellee
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Appellee
South Carolina Local Government

Charles Edward Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7001

CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former 

Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL DIVISION,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

BUDGET CONTROL; SOUTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT, In their 

individual and official capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-04903-DCN)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7001 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after 

a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Thomas’ claims brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012); the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012); the 

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796l (2012); and the Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1320d to 1320d-9 (2012), and declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’ state law claims. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. 

S.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 0:14-cv-04903-DCN (D.S.C. June 18, 

2015). 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

Appeal: 15-7001 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 2