Case Name: Eugene HARRISON, a/k/a Eugene Paul Harrison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas MOTEKA, a/k/a Thomas Motycka, Doctor, individually and in his official capacity; Leon Joyner, Director of Physicians Health Services, individually and in his official capacity; Aramark's Food Services Director and Employees; Dieticians, individually and in their official capacities; Bob Ceeffers, Supervisor; Officer Jarvis, Alvin S. Detention Center Officer, individually and in his official capacity; Lieutenant Burrough, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Dukes, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Hydrick, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Chance, individually and in his official capacity; Nurse Nikki, Physicians Health Services Nurse, individually and in her official capacity; Nurse Sherry, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Ms. Baker, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-08
Citations: 235 F. App'x 127
Docket Number: No. 07-6346
Parties: Eugene HARRISON, a/k/a Eugene Paul Harrison, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Thomas MOTEKA, a/k/a Thomas Motycka, Doctor, individually and in his official capacity; Leon Joyner, Director of Physicians Health Services, individually and in his official capacity; Aramark’s Food Services Director and Employees; Dieticians, individually and in their official capacities; Bob Ceeffers, Supervisor; Officer Jarvis, Alvin S. Detention Center Officer, individually and in his official capacity; Lieutenant Burrough, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Dukes, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Hydrick, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Chance, individually and in his official capacity; Nurse Nikki, Physicians Health Services Nurse, individually and in her official capacity; Nurse Sherry, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants—Appellees, and Ms. Baker, Defendant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
Eugene HARRISON, a/k/a Eugene Paul Harrison, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Thomas MOTEKA, a/k/a Thomas Motycka, Doctor, individually and in his official capacity; Leon Joyner, Director of Physicians Health Services, individually and in his official capacity; Aramark’s Food Services Director and Employees; Dieticians, individually and in their official capacities; Bob Ceeffers, Supervisor; Officer Jarvis, Alvin S. Detention Center Officer, individually and in his official capacity; Lieutenant Burrough, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Dukes, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Hydrick, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Chance, individually and in his official capacity; Nurse Nikki, Physicians Health Services Nurse, individually and in her official capacity; Nurse Sherry, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants—Appellees, and Ms. Baker, Defendant.
No. 07-6346.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 8, 2007.
Eugene Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. John K. Blincow, Jr., Ashley S. Heslop, Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; Joseph Du-Rant Thompson, III, Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Harrison 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. Harrison v. Moketa, 485 F.Supp.2d 652 (D.S.C.2007). 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.