Case Name: Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director; Mary Brown, Clerk; Kerrie Specht, Parole Officer; Ralph Hunter, Dho; Mr. Steven, Case Worker; Mrs. Laverette; Mr. Hallman, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Insurance Policy Holder, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-28
Citations: 325 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 08-8614
Parties: Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director; Mary Brown, Clerk; Kerrie Specht, Parole Officer; Ralph Hunter, Dho; Mr. Steven, Case Worker; Mrs. Laverette; Mr. Hallman, Defendants—Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Insurance Policy Holder, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director; Mary Brown, Clerk; Kerrie Specht, Parole Officer; Ralph Hunter, Dho; Mr. Steven, Case Worker; Mrs. Laverette; Mr. Hallman, Defendants—Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Insurance Policy Holder, Defendant.
No. 08-8614.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: May 28, 2009.
Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric Kaufmann, Donald Ray Settana, Jr., McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court's order accepting the recom mendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Odom v. Ozmint, No. 3:07-cv-00343-PMD (D.S.C. Oct. 30, 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.