Case Name: Mansa Musa BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; John Davis, Medical Director; Stan Burtt, Warden; Michael Dr. Michael Sribnick; Doctor Gray A. Kocher; Martha Gedert; D. Kelly, RN, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 193 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 06-6571
Parties: Mansa Musa BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; John Davis, Medical Director; Stan Burtt, Warden; Michael Dr. Michael Sribnick; Doctor Gray A. Kocher; Martha Gedert; D. Kelly, RN, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 209–209

Head Matter:
Mansa Musa BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; John Davis, Medical Director; Stan Burtt, Warden; Michael Dr. Michael Sribnick; Doctor Gray A. Kocher; Martha Gedert; D. Kelly, RN, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6571.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2006.
Mansa Musa Banshee, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Charles Tanner, Ness, Jett & Tanner, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mansa Musa Banshee 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. Banshee v. Ozmint, No. 6:04-cv-23099-TLW, 2006 WL 570082 (D.S.C. Mar. 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.