Case Name: Habeeb Abdul MALIK, a/k/a Ron Tearia Nicholas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Janice Phillips, Health Care Authority, SCDC; Eileen Delaney, Nurse Practitioner III; Vaughn Jackson, Major, SCDC; FNU Thomas, Food Service Coordinator SCDC, all sued in their personal, official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-20
Citations: 289 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 08-6482
Parties: Habeeb Abdul MALIK, a/k/a Ron Tearia Nicholas, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Janice Phillips, Health Care Authority, SCDC; Eileen Delaney, Nurse Practitioner III; Vaughn Jackson, Major, SCDC; FNU Thomas, Food Service Coordinator SCDC, all sued in their personal, official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
Habeeb Abdul MALIK, a/k/a Ron Tearia Nicholas, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John OZMINT, Director of SCDC; Janice Phillips, Health Care Authority, SCDC; Eileen Delaney, Nurse Practitioner III; Vaughn Jackson, Major, SCDC; FNU Thomas, Food Service Coordinator SCDC, all sued in their personal, official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-6482.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 14, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2008.
Habeeb Abdul Malik, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Habeeb Abdul Malik appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Malik v. Ozmint, No. 8:07-cv-00387-RBH, 2008 WL 701394 (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2008). 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.