UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6821
ROBERT JERRY SMITH, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOUG CATOE, Former Director; RICKIE HARRISON,
Warden; ROBIN CHAVIS, Associate Warden;
STANLEY BURTT, Associate Warden; JIMMY SLIGH;
NURSE LOYD; SOLOMON SANYO, Officer; OFFICER
WAZLT; OFFICER ADAMSON; AMOS, Investigator;
ROBINSON, Investigator; MIKE WILLIAMS,
Maintence Supervisor; MIKE MURPHY, Maintence
Supervisor; LIEUTENANT DAVIS; CHRISTOPHER
ROBINSON, Former Maintenance Supervisor; D.
COOK, Head Nurse; NURSE STEIN; TRACY TAYLOR,
former Clinical Council; M. S. TAYLOR,
Officer; B. ROBINSON, Officer; DEBRA WISE;
MICHAEL J. BEINOR, MD; JOHN D. VOLMER,
Administrator of South Carolina Board Medical
Exam; OFFICER MANDIEZ, a/k/a Jones, Officer;
NURSE SHUMPERT, Nurse Practitioner; NURSE
GARDNER; OFFICER SHROPSHIRE; JORDAN; JENNIGN;
PERRY, former IGP; WAYNE PAGE, Maintenance
Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-02-1046-4-26-BH)
Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr.,
Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., 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
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v.
Catoe, No. CA-02-1046-4-26-BH (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2004). Because a
certificate of appealability is not required to appeal from the
district court’s order denying relief in a § 1983 action, we deny
Smith’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary.
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
- 3 -