Case Name: James BENTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT; William White; Joseph Alewine; Don Driskell; Michael Gollach; Marty Mackey, Broad River HCA; H. Wright, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-07
Citations: 120 F. App'x 987
Docket Number: No. 04-7874
Parties: James BENTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT; William White; Joseph Alewine; Don Driskell; Michael Gollach; Marty Mackey, Broad River HCA; H. Wright, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 987–988

Head Matter:
James BENTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT; William White; Joseph Alewine; Don Driskell; Michael Gollach; Marty Mackey, Broad River HCA; H. Wright, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-7874.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2005.
James Benton, Appellant pro se.
Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., Stephen L. Hall, McKay, McKay & Settana, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James Miller Davis, Jr., Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Benton appeals the district court's orders (1) affirming the magistrate judge's denial of Benton's motion for the appointment of counsel, and (2) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Benton's 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 Benton v. Ozmint, No. CA-04-905 (D.S.C. July 1, 2004; Oct. 27, 2004). 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