Case Name: Kevin BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Israel BROOKS, Jr., United States Marshal; John and Jane Doe, Marshals # 1-5; Chief Executive Officers, of the Lexington County Detention Center; James Metts, Sheriff; John W. Tate, Major; Alan L. Richardson, Major; Felix E. Williams, Captain, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-28
Citations: 31 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 01-7785
Parties: Kevin BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Israel BROOKS, Jr., United States Marshal; John and Jane Doe, Marshals # 1-5; Chief Executive Officers, of the Lexington County Detention Center; James Metts, Sheriff; John W. Tate, Major; Alan L. Richardson, Major; Felix E. Williams, Captain, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
Kevin BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Israel BROOKS, Jr., United States Marshal; John and Jane Doe, Marshals # 1-5; Chief Executive Officers, of the Lexington County Detention Center; James Metts, Sheriff; John W. Tate, Major; Alan L. Richardson, Major; Felix E. Williams, Captain, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7785.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2002.
Decided March 28, 2002.
Kevin Barrett, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blain Rosbrugh, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Barrett appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) 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 Barrett v. Brook, No. CA-00-2967-4-19BF (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2001). 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.