Case Name: Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jonathan C. Francis; James B. Price, Plaintiffs, v. Russell HUGHES, Dr.; Brenda E. Young-Rice; Fred Pauer; Reverend Smith; Lieutenant Abney; The South Carolina Department of Mental Health, for injunctive relief; Doctor Chavez, in their personal capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-19
Citations: 258 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 07-7272
Parties: Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Jonathan C. Francis; James B. Price, Plaintiffs, v. Russell HUGHES, Dr.; Brenda E. Young-Rice; Fred Pauer; Reverend Smith; Lieutenant Abney; The South Carolina Department of Mental Health, for injunctive relief; Doctor Chavez, in their personal capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 606–606

Head Matter:
Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Jonathan C. Francis; James B. Price, Plaintiffs, v. Russell HUGHES, Dr.; Brenda E. Young-Rice; Fred Pauer; Reverend Smith; Lieutenant Abney; The South Carolina Department of Mental Health, for injunctive relief; Doctor Chavez, in their personal capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-7272.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 28, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 19, 2007.
Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Appellant Pro Se. Ginger Dee Goforth, Andrew Todd Darwin, Holcombe, Bomar, Gunn & Bradford, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kris Sarayn Kollyns appeals the district court's judgment adopting in part the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations, granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Kollyns v. Hughes, No. 3:05-cv-00090-JFA, 2006 WL 2716407 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2006; 2007 WL 2363760 Aug. 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.