Case Name: Charles Edward THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon Ozmint, Former Prison Director; Medical Division; Financial Division, Defendants-Appellees, and Budget Control; South Carolina Local Government, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-14
Citations: 616 F. App'x 66
Docket Number: No. 15-7001
Parties: Charles Edward THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon Ozmint, Former Prison Director; Medical Division; Financial Division, Defendants-Appellees, and Budget Control; South Carolina Local Government, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 66–66

Head Matter:
Charles Edward THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon Ozmint, Former Prison Director; Medical Division; Financial Division, Defendants-Appellees, and Budget Control; South Carolina Local Government, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
No. 15-7001.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 9, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 14, 2015.
Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro ' Se.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Thomas' claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12300 (2012); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701-7961 (2012); and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d to 1320d-9 (2012), and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas' state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Thomas v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 0:14-cv-04903-DCN, 2015 WL 3789418 (D.S.C. June 17, 2015). 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.