Case Name: Angelo B. HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Anthony J. Padula; John J. Brooks; Bruce Oberman; Ronnie Cribb; Darryl Cain, Sergeant of SMU at L.C.I.; Christopher Godfrey, Officer of SMU at L.C.I., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-05
Citations: 448 F. App'x 326
Docket Number: No. 11-6604
Parties: Angelo B. HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Anthony J. Padula; John J. Brooks; Bruce Oberman; Ronnie Cribb; Darryl Cain, Sergeant of SMU at L.C.I.; Christopher Godfrey, Officer of SMU at L.C.I., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 448
Pages: 326–326

Head Matter:
Angelo B. HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Anthony J. Padula; John J. Brooks; Bruce Oberman; Ronnie Cribb; Darryl Cain, Sergeant of SMU at L.C.I.; Christopher Godfrey, Officer of SMU at L.C.I., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6604.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 5, 2011.
Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Barry Johnson, G. Murrell Smith, Jr., Lee Erter, Wilson, Holler & Smith, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo B. Ham appeals the denial of his motions to appoint counsel and to compel discovery and the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ham v. Ozmint, No. 6:10-cv-01095-DCN (D.S.C. May 14, 2010); 2010 WL 4481815 (Nov. 1, 2010); 2011 WL 245750 (Jan 26, 2011) & 2011 WL 1543221 (Apr. 25, 2011). 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.