Case Name: M. Rodney JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Gary D. Maynard, Director; Jim Hodges, The South Carolina Governor; Charlie Condon, The South Carolina Attorney General; Robert W. Stewart, South Carolina Sled Chief; Jim Christopher, South Carolina Sled Chief; Brenton Glisson, South Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-18
Citations: 57 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 02-7710
Parties: M. Rodney JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Gary D. Maynard, Director; Jim Hodges, The South Carolina Governor; Charlie Condon, The South Carolina Attorney General; Robert W. Stewart, South Carolina Sled Chief; Jim Christopher, South Carolina Sled Chief; Brenton Glisson, South Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
M. Rodney JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Gary D. Maynard, Director; Jim Hodges, The South Carolina Governor; Charlie Condon, The South Carolina Attorney General; Robert W. Stewart, South Carolina Sled Chief; Jim Christopher, South Carolina Sled Chief; Brenton Glisson, South Carolina Department of Corrections PCI Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-7710.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2003.
Decided March 18, 2003.
M. Rodney Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Saunders McKenzie Bridges, Bridges, Orr, Derrick & Ervin, Florence, South Carolina; Robert E. Lee, Amy Anderson Wise, Aiken Bridges, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
M. Rodney Jones 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. South Carolina, No. CA-02-157-3-24 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2002). 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.
DISMISSED.