UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7826
ELRIDGE V. HILLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
JON E. OZMINT, Director of SCDC; GARY A. BOYD,
Director of Inmate Services; DAVID M.
TATARSKY, Deputy General Counsel; MARY
COLEMAN, Inmate Grievance Branch Chief; BETTY
ROBINSON, Administrative Coordinator of
Program Services; OSCAR A. FAULKENBERRY,
Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution;
CALVIN ANTHONY, Lee Correctional Institution;
CHARLES BURTON, Lee Correctional Institution
Associate Warden; NFN ADAMS, Kershaw
Correctional Institution Officer; BARBARA
RICKETSON, Lee Correctional Institution
Mailroom Clerk; DONNA MITCHELL, Lee
Correctional Institution Institutional Inmate
Grievance Coordinator formerly Kershaw
Correctional Institution's Inmate Grievance
Coordinator; DONALD DEASE, Former
Institutional Division II Director; GARY D.
MAYNARD, Former SCDC Director; JOHN LANE,
Former Kershaw Correctional Institution
Mailroom Supervisor; NIKKI MCCOUGAR, Former
Kershaw Correctional Institution Mailroom
Clerk; SHARI HINSON, Kershaw Correctional
Institution Mailroom Clerk; TONY L. STRAWHORN,
Program Services Deputy Director; WILLIAM L.
EAGLETON, Program Services Deputy Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (4:05-cv-00319)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eldridge V. Hills, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Nikole Deanna
Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, RILEY POPE & LANEY, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Elridge V. Hills 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. Hills v. South
Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:05-cv-00319 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 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
- 3 -