UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7329
TYRONE LAMAR ROBERSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden Lee Corrections Institution;
LIEUTENANT A. DAVIS; MS. FULTON, Medical Health Care
Provider RN; RN MS. JUDY RABON; RN MS. MCDONALD; J. MCREE,
MD, KCI Pharmacy; JUANITA MOSS, Food Service Supervisor;
MS. BELL, Food Service Supervisor; MS. NORMAN, Food Service
Supervisor; MS. ANDERSON, Food Service Supervisor,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MAJOR JAMES DEAN;
LIEUTENANT ERNEST MIMS; SERGEANT B. COOK; SERGEANT K.
ARENS; MS. KELA E. THOMAS, Commission of Probation Parole
and Pardon Services Director; WILLIAM BYARS, JR., SCDC
Director, et al; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL
BOARD COMMITTEE; WILLIAM F. MARSCHER, III, SC Commission on
Indigent Defense; FREDERICK M. CORLEY, Esquire; RANDOLPH
MURDAUGH, III, Solicitor Attorney for the State; WILLIAM T.
HOWELL, Judge of the 14th Judicial Circuit Court of SC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-01872-RMG)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parker McLean,
CLARKE, JOHNSON, PETERSON & MCLEAN, PA, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Lamar Roberson appeals the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Roberson v. Padula, No. 2:13-cv-01872-RMG (D.S.C.
July 22, 2015). In addition, we decline to address claims
raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 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
3