Case Name: Jonathan Wesley CUPP, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Willie J. BAMBERG, Deputy Director, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees; Horace James, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees; Joseph Chisolm, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-31
Citations: 173 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 06-6191
Parties: Jonathan Wesley CUPP, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Willie J. BAMBERG, Deputy Director, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees; Horace James, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees; Joseph Chisolm, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Jonathan Wesley CUPP, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Willie J. BAMBERG, Deputy Director, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees; Horace James, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees; Joseph Chisolm, in their individual and official capacity as Ocrdc employees, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6191.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 31, 2006.
Jonathan Wesley Cupp, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Christy Scott Stephens, Bogoslow, Jones, Stephens & Duffie, Pa, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Wesley Cupp, Sr., 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 Cupp v. Bamberg, No. 2:04-cv-02487-PMD (D.S.C. Jan. 5, 2006). 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