Summary
finding no actionable § 1983 claim based on official's alleged violation of state procedures in failing to provide mental health treatment to plaintiff's cell mate
Summary of this case from Cephas v. BookerOpinion
No. 13-7019
2013-10-21
COREY JAWAN ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN T. CLARK; MS. D. BAILEY, Classification; LIEUTENANT J. WILLIAMS; OFFICER MOSHER; LOLITA M. LEE; SHERISSE D. BIRCH; LORETTA AIKEN; WARDEN WAYNE MCCABE; IGC B. J. THOMAS; OFFICER J. MIDDLETON; OFFFICER JEREMY JOHNSON; NURSE LUANNE MAUNEY; NURSE J. SCOTT; ANN HALLMAN; OFFICER TABITHA FORD; MS. S. JONES; MAJOR THIERRY NETTLES; ASSOCIATE WARDEN FRED THOMPSON; WILLIAM BRIGHTHARP; CAPTAIN ANN SHEPPARD, Defendants - Appellees, and SERGEANT J. ARANDA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants.
Corey Jawan Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, Thomas Happel Scurry, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Michael Charles Tanner, MICHAEL C. TANNER LAW OFFICE, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00502-JMC) Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Jawan Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, Thomas Happel Scurry, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; Michael Charles Tanner, MICHAEL C. TANNER LAW OFFICE, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Corey Jawan Robinson 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. Robinson v. Clark, No. 5:12-cv-00502-JMC (D.S.C. June 18, 2013). 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