Case Name: James Preston DOTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Commissioner; Colie Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Alewine, Doctor; John A. Davis; L. Olivenciafont, Doctor, Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Medical Staff at Mccormick Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees, and Mark Sanford, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-01
Citations: 235 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 07-6743
Parties: James Preston DOTSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Commissioner; Colie Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Alewine, Doctor; John A. Davis; L. Olivenciafont, Doctor, Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Medical Staff at Mccormick Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees, and Mark Sanford, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
James Preston DOTSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Commissioner; Colie Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; Alewine, Doctor; John A. Davis; L. Olivenciafont, Doctor, Ridgeland Correctional Institution; Medical Staff at Mccormick Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees, and Mark Sanford, Defendant.
No. 07-6743.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2007.
James Preston Dotson, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., John Eric Kaufmann, McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Preston Dotson appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dotson v. Ozmint, No. 2:06-cv-01770-HFF (D.S.C. Apr. 6, 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.