Case Name: Richard Keith POE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Joseph L. Anderson, Warden; Sandra Barrett; Charlotte Greco; Sam Strickland; Lisa Parnell, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees, and Medical Staff; Correctional Staff, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-21
Citations: 230 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 06-8030
Parties: Richard Keith POE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Joseph L. Anderson, Warden; Sandra Barrett; Charlotte Greco; Sam Strickland; Lisa Parnell, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees, and Medical Staff; Correctional Staff, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 316–316

Head Matter:
Richard Keith POE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Joseph L. Anderson, Warden; Sandra Barrett; Charlotte Greco; Sam Strickland; Lisa Parnell, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees, and Medical Staff; Correctional Staff, Defendants.
No. 06-8030.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2007.
Decided: June 21, 2007.
Richard Keith Poe, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., John Eric Kaufmann, McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Keith Poe 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 deny Poe's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Poe v. Ozmint, No. 0:05-cv-01568-CMC, 2006 WL 3489110 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 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.