Case Name: Wade STEPNEY, Jr., a/k/a Wade Stephney, Jr., a/k/a Wade Stephney, a/k/a Wade Stepheny, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BECKWITH, SCDC Warden, Wateree River Correctional Institution; Deputy Warden Blanding; Major Boggs; Captain Gasden; Lieutenant Brown; Sergeant Davis; Sergeant Hoosier, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-23
Citations: 392 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 09-6979
Parties: Wade STEPNEY, Jr., a/k/a Wade Stephney, Jr., a/k/a Wade Stephney, a/k/a Wade Stepheny, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BECKWITH, SCDC Warden, Wateree River Correctional Institution; Deputy Warden Blanding; Major Boggs; Captain Gasden; Lieutenant Brown; Sergeant Davis; Sergeant Hoosier, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Wade STEPNEY, Jr., a/k/a Wade Stephney, Jr., a/k/a Wade Stephney, a/k/a Wade Stepheny, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BECKWITH, SCDC Warden, Wateree River Correctional Institution; Deputy Warden Blanding; Major Boggs; Captain Gasden; Lieutenant Brown; Sergeant Davis; Sergeant Hoosier, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-6979.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2010.
Wade Stepney, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wade Stepney, Jr. appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommenda tion of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stepney v. Beckwith, No. 8:09-cv-00771-MBS, 2010 WL 293786 (D.S.C. Jan. 21, 2010); 2009 WL 1357225 (May 12, 2009). 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.