Darren Simmons v. Shelley Stokes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Darren Simmons v. Shelley Stokes

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7322

DARREN SIMMONS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROLAND MCFADDEN, Warden; ROBIN CHAVIS; AMY SMITH, RN Nurse; MS. FOX, a/k/a Michelle D. Fox, Mental Health Services; WILLIAM BYARS, SCDC Director of Prisons; REDFERN MILLER, Grievance Cord; WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; SHELLEY STOKES, Nurse; WILLIAM BRADHAM, MD; MARTIN DOMMERS, MD; PAUL C. DRAGO, MD; DOCTOR SAMPSON, MD; NURSE RAINWATER, a/k/a Amy Rainwater; MS. MARTIN; MS. ROMAN, Nurse; JAKES SPIRES, Nurse; MS. WILLIAMS, Nurse; MS. SPIVEYS, Nurse RN; MS. JACOBS, Correctional Officer; MORTON KELLEY, Nurse; KWAJALEIN C. MUHAMMAD, McCormick C.I. Nurse; DONICA K. JENKINS, Evand C.I. Records Analyst I,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS; ROBERT SCHULZE, JR., MD; JENNIFER A. FELDMAN, MD,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00175-RMG)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Shelton Webber Haile, Mason Abram Summers, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Darren Simmons appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation 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.

Simmons v. Stokes, No. 5:11-cv-00175-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 1, 2012).

Simmons’ motion for a transcript at Government expense is

denied. 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished