Case Name: Frederick BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. METTS, Sheriff; Captain Williams; Major Harris; EMSA Correctional Medical Care Services; Aramark Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees; Frederick Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. Metts, Sheriff; Captain Williams; Major Harris; EMSA Correctional Medical Care Services; Aramark Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-09
Citations: 60 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: Nos. 02-7573, 02-7775
Parties: Frederick BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. METTS, Sheriff; Captain Williams; Major Harris; EMSA Correctional Medical Care Services; Aramark Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees. Frederick Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. Metts, Sheriff; Captain Williams; Major Harris; EMSA Correctional Medical Care Services; Aramark Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Frederick BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. METTS, Sheriff; Captain Williams; Major Harris; EMSA Correctional Medical Care Services; Aramark Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees. Frederick Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James R. Metts, Sheriff; Captain Williams; Major Harris; EMSA Correctional Medical Care Services; Aramark Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 02-7573, 02-7775.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 24, 2003.
Decided April 9, 2003.
Frederick Brown, Appellant Pro Se. James Miller Davis, Jr., Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frederick Brown appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. Metts, No. CA-99-1040-3-10BC (D.S.C. Oct. 4 & 31, 2002). 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.