Case Name: James Gilbert WOODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. HUPPENTHAL, Administrator; Primecare Medical; Kim Browning, Head Nurse; WV Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; Officer Hindson, Corrections Officer, Retired, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-25
Citations: 283 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 08-6644
Parties: James Gilbert WOODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. HUPPENTHAL, Administrator; Primecare Medical; Kim Browning, Head Nurse; WV Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; Officer Hindson, Corrections Officer, Retired, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
James Gilbert WOODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. HUPPENTHAL, Administrator; Primecare Medical; Kim Browning, Head Nurse; WV Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; Officer Hindson, Corrections Officer, Retired, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-6644.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2008.
Decided: June 25, 2008.
James Gilbert Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Mario Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Joseph Dustin Dillard, John Dorsey Hoffman, Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Mark William Browning, David L. Shuman, Sr., Shuman, McCuskey & Slicer, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Gilbert Woodson appeals the district court's order accepting the recom mendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Woodson v. Huppenthal, No. 5:07-cv-00141, 2008 WL 828829 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 27, 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.