Case Name: Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jonathan C. Francis; Kyle Crisco, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Selman WATSON; Martha Williams, in their personal capacities; South Carolina Department of Mental Health; South Carolina Department of Corrections, for injunctive relief, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-09
Citations: 216 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 06-7700
Parties: Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jonathan C. Francis; Kyle Crisco, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Selman WATSON; Martha Williams, in their personal capacities; South Carolina Department of Mental Health; South Carolina Department of Corrections, for injunctive relief, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 304–304

Head Matter:
Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jonathan C. Francis; Kyle Crisco, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Selman WATSON; Martha Williams, in their personal capacities; South Carolina Department of Mental Health; South Carolina Department of Corrections, for injunctive relief, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-7700.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 9, 2007.
Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Holcombe, Bomar, Gunn & Bradford, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kris Sarayn Kollyns appeals the district court's judgment and 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. See Kollyns v. Watson, No. 3:05-cv-02401-JFA, 2006 WL 2716426 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 22, 2006; entered Sept. 25, 2006). 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.