Case Name: Jesse Thomas GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenda MCCOY, R.N.; Sadie Chavis, L.P.N., Defendants-Appellees, and Charles Stewart, Dr., Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-15
Citations: 217 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 06-6823
Parties: Jesse Thomas GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenda MCCOY, R.N.; Sadie Chavis, L.P.N., Defendants-Appellees, and Charles Stewart, Dr., Defendant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Jesse Thomas GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenda MCCOY, R.N.; Sadie Chavis, L.P.N., Defendants-Appellees, and Charles Stewart, Dr., Defendant.
No. 06-6823.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 15, 2007.
Jesse Thomas Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jesse Thomas Graham appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and awarding costs and nominal attorneys' fees to the Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Graham v. Stewart, No. 5:04-ct-00923-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 15, 2006; April 7, 2006). 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.
We conclude we have jurisdiction over this appeal because Graham timely indicated his intent to seek appellate review of the district court's order dismissing the complaint in his objections to the Defendants' bill of costs, and he designated both orders in his amended notice of appeal filed within thirty days after the district court's final order awarding costs. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 3(c)(4); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).