Case Name: Tammy R. SABO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve CANTERBURY, Individually and in his capacity as Director, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; Jamie Spencer, Individually and in his capacity as Warden; Northern Regional Jail and Correctional Facility; West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 173 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 05-1805
Parties: Tammy R. SABO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve CANTERBURY, Individually and in his capacity as Director, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; Jamie Spencer, Individually and in his capacity as Warden; Northern Regional Jail and Correctional Facility; West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
Tammy R. SABO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Steve CANTERBURY, Individually and in his capacity as Director, West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority; Jamie Spencer, Individually and in his capacity as Warden; Northern Regional Jail and Correctional Facility; West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1805.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2006.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Peter M. Suwak, Washington, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. David L. Wyant, Bailey & Wyant, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia; Chad M. Cardinal, WV Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tammy R. Sabo appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants on her claim of deliberate indifference to her medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on her state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Sabo v. Canterbury, No. 5:03CV84 (N.D. W. Va. June 16, 2005). 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