Case Name: Robert KOON, a/k/a Robert Holland Koon, a/k/a Robert H. Koon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph C. UBAH, Lee Correctional Institution Dentist, Defendant-Appellee, and James Sligh, Regional Director, SCDC; Warden Padula; Jon Ozmint, Director, SCDC; John Doe, Lee Correctional Institution Dentist, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-02
Citations: 280 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 08-6499
Parties: Robert KOON, a/k/a Robert Holland Koon, a/k/a Robert H. Koon, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph C. UBAH, Lee Correctional Institution Dentist, Defendant—Appellee, and James Sligh, Regional Director, SCDC; Warden Padula; Jon Ozmint, Director, SCDC; John Doe, Lee Correctional Institution Dentist, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
Robert KOON, a/k/a Robert Holland Koon, a/k/a Robert H. Koon, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph C. UBAH, Lee Correctional Institution Dentist, Defendant—Appellee, and James Sligh, Regional Director, SCDC; Warden Padula; Jon Ozmint, Director, SCDC; John Doe, Lee Correctional Institution Dentist, Defendants.
No. 08-6499.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: June 2, 2008.
Robert Koon, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Koon appeals the district court's orders 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. Koon v. Ubah, No. 8:06-cv-02000-RBH, 2007 WL 1486067 (D.S.C. May 18, 2007); 2008 WL 724041 (Mar. 18, 2008). 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.