Case Name: Fredrick Y. CULP, a/k/a Fredrick Yvonne Culp, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor ALEWINE, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Doctor John Pate, Doctor at Lee Correctional Institution; Doctor Amonitti, Doctor at Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Yvonne McDonald, Nurse at Lee; Michelle Ussemy, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Paul Drago, Nurse Practitioner at Kershaw; Nurse Davis, at Ridgeland, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Richland Memorial, Palmetto Health Richland Hospital; Doctors at Richland Memorial that Performed Heart Surgery; Nurse Practitioner at Lee Correctional Institution; Nurse Practitioner at Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Doctor Petite, at Richland Memorial; Doctor Bearden, at Richland Memorial; Doctor John Doe, at Richland Memorial; Doctor at Lee Correctional Institution; Doctor at Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 585 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 14-7111
Parties: Fredrick Y. CULP, a/k/a Fredrick Yvonne Culp, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor ALEWINE, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Doctor John Pate, Doctor at Lee Correctional Institution; Doctor Amonitti, Doctor at Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Yvonne McDonald, Nurse at Lee; Michelle Ussemy, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Paul Drago, Nurse Practitioner at Kershaw; Nurse Davis, at Ridgeland, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Richland Memorial, Palmetto Health Richland Hospital; Doctors at Richland Memorial that Performed Heart Surgery; Nurse Practitioner at Lee Correctional Institution; Nurse Practitioner at Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Doctor Petite, at Richland Memorial; Doctor Bearden, at Richland Memorial; Doctor John Doe, at Richland Memorial; Doctor at Lee Correctional Institution; Doctor at Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Defendants.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
Fredrick Y. CULP, a/k/a Fredrick Yvonne Culp, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor ALEWINE, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Doctor John Pate, Doctor at Lee Correctional Institution; Doctor Amonitti, Doctor at Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Yvonne McDonald, Nurse at Lee; Michelle Ussemy, Nurse at Kershaw Correctional Institution; Paul Drago, Nurse Practitioner at Kershaw; Nurse Davis, at Ridgeland, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Richland Memorial, Palmetto Health Richland Hospital; Doctors at Richland Memorial that Performed Heart Surgery; Nurse Practitioner at Lee Correctional Institution; Nurse Practitioner at Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Doctor Petite, at Richland Memorial; Doctor Bearden, at Richland Memorial; Doctor John Doe, at Richland Memorial; Doctor at Lee Correctional Institution; Doctor at Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Defendants.
No. 14-7111.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 16, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2014.
Frederick Y. Culp, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, James Rufus Brat-ton, III, Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Meghan Hazelwood Hall, Julius Walker McKay, II, Kelli Lister Sullivan, McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Y. Culp appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Culp v. Doctor Alewine, No. 5:13-cv-01342-JFA, 2014 WL 3499224 (D.S.C. July 14, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.