Eugene Harrison, a/k/a Eugene Paul Harrison v. Thomas Moteka, a/k/a Thomas Motycka, Doctor, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6346
EUGENE HARRISON, a/k/a Eugene Paul Harrison,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS MOTEKA, a/k/a Thomas Motycka, Doctor,
individually and in his official capacity;
LEON JOYNER, Director of Physicians Health
Services, individually and in his official
capacity; ARAMARK'S FOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR AND
EMPLOYEES; DIETICIANS, individually and in
their official capacities; BOB CEEFFERS,
Supervisor; OFFICER JARVIS, Alvin S. Detention
Center Officer, individually and in his
official capacity; LIEUTENANT BURROUGH,
individually and in his official capacity;
OFFICER DUKES, individually and in his
official capacity; OFFICER HYDRICK,
individually and in his official capacity;
OFFICER CHANCE, individually and in his
official capacity; NURSE NIKKI, Physicians
Health Services Nurse, individually and in her
official capacity; NURSE SHERRY, individually
and in her official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MS. BAKER,
Defendant.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (9:06-cv-01203-PMD)
Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 8, 2007
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. John K. Blincow, Jr., Ashley S.
Heslop, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Charleston, South
Carolina; Joseph DuRant Thompson, III, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD,
P.A., Charleston, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II,
Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Harrison 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. Harrison v. Moteka,
No. 9:06-cv-01203-PMD (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2007). 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 of 3 --