Case ID: f-appx_119/html/0546-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; H.A. Langston, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-7535.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
    Decided Jan. 20, 2005.
    Stephen Shirley, Appellant pro se. Steven Michael Pruitt, Robert W. Cone, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    
      Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Stephen Shirley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Shirley v. Langston, No. 03-1630-22BD (D.S.C., filed Aug. 25, 2004 & entered Aug. 26, 2004). 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