Case ID: f-appx_19/html/0123-02.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

James Guy ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. RUDLOFF; Kathy A. Palmer; Stephen W. Waters, D. Rowland, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-6445.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 20, 2001.
    Decided Sept. 26, 2001.
    James Guy Arnold, pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

James Guy Arnold appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. 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 Arnold v. Rudloff, No. CA-00-105-3 (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 2, 2001). Further, we deny Arnold’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.