Opinion
No. 12-7322
11-27-2012
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.
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UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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