Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel STALEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Kirkland Correctional Institution; Unidentified Parties, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-6022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2004.
    Decided May 21, 2004.
    Daniel Staley, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Staley 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. See Staley v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-03-3436 (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2003). 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 
      
       We note that Staley's objections to the report of the magistrate judge were timely under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2000). Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). We have considered the objections in reaching our decision.