Case Name: Freddie D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sue MEDFORD, R.N. Nursing Supervisor II at Marion Correctional Institution; Keith Osteen, Assistant Superintendent for Programs at Marion Correctional Institute; North Carolina Department of Corrections, Medical Utilization Review Board; Nurse Godfrey, Assistant Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; Delra Rodatz, Nurse, L.P.N.; Doctor Jagust, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-10
Citations: 89 F. App'x 399
Docket Number: No. 03-7603
Parties: Freddie D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sue MEDFORD, R.N. Nursing Supervisor II at Marion Correctional Institution; Keith Osteen, Assistant Superintendent for Programs at Marion Correctional Institute; North Carolina Department of Corrections, Medical Utilization Review Board; Nurse Godfrey, Assistant Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; Delra Rodatz, Nurse, L.P.N.; Doctor Jagust, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
Freddie D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sue MEDFORD, R.N. Nursing Supervisor II at Marion Correctional Institution; Keith Osteen, Assistant Superintendent for Programs at Marion Correctional Institute; North Carolina Department of Corrections, Medical Utilization Review Board; Nurse Godfrey, Assistant Nurse at Marion Correctional Institution; Delra Rodatz, Nurse, L.P.N.; Doctor Jagust, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-7603.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2004.
Decided March 10, 2004.
Freddie D. Taylor, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Freddie D. Taylor appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Medford, No. CA-03-202-1-02-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2003). 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