Case Name: Fred FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner Ozmint; Doctor Olivencia; Warden Taylor; Nurse Harrison; Nurse Flannery; Warden Bazzle; Muhaawha; Gonsla Moore, Classification Case worker of medical; Attorney General McMaster; Doctor Allewine; Doctor Alewine; Doctor Brown; Janet Phillips; Doctor Paul, Defendants-Appellees, and Paul Enloe, Doctor, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-17
Citations: 247 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 07-6776
Parties: Fred FREEMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner Ozmint; Doctor Olivencia; Warden Taylor; Nurse Harrison; Nurse Flannery; Warden Bazzle; Muhaawha; Gonsla Moore, Classification Case worker of medical; Attorney General McMaster; Doctor Allewine; Doctor Alewine; Doctor Brown; Janet Phillips; Doctor Paul, Defendants—Appellees, and Paul Enloe, Doctor, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 247
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
Fred FREEMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner Ozmint; Doctor Olivencia; Warden Taylor; Nurse Harrison; Nurse Flannery; Warden Bazzle; Muhaawha; Gonsla Moore, Classification Case worker of medical; Attorney General McMaster; Doctor Allewine; Doctor Alewine; Doctor Brown; Janet Phillips; Doctor Paul, Defendants—Appellees, and Paul Enloe, Doctor, Defendant.
No. 07-6776.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 17, 2007.
Fred Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fred Freeman 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. Freeman v. South Carolina Dep't of Corn, No. 0:06-cv-1171-DCN, 2007 WL 1239504 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 27, 2007 & entered Apr. 30, 2007). We deny Freeman's motions for appointment of counsel, production of documents, and to modify pleadings. 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.