Case Name: Thurman Van LILLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael SCHWARTZ, Chief; Kenneth Owens, Captain; Fay Barrinaue, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees, and Lamont Lee Greene; Vernon Huge; Isaac Priest; Allen Bell, Jr.; Michael Robinson; Melvin Green; Joe Walker, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-07
Citations: 144 F. App'x 999
Docket Number: No. 05-6761
Parties: Thurman Van LILLY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael SCHWARTZ, Chief; Kenneth Owens, Captain; Fay Barrinaue, Lieutenant, Defendants—Appellees, and Lamont Lee Greene; Vernon Huge; Isaac Priest; Allen Bell, Jr.; Michael Robinson; Melvin Green; Joe Walker, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 999–999

Head Matter:
Thurman Van LILLY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael SCHWARTZ, Chief; Kenneth Owens, Captain; Fay Barrinaue, Lieutenant, Defendants—Appellees, and Lamont Lee Greene; Vernon Huge; Isaac Priest; Allen Bell, Jr.; Michael Robinson; Melvin Green; Joe Walker, Defendants.
No. 05-6761.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.
Decided Oct. 7, 2005.
Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Michael Smith, McNair Law Firm, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; William Walter Doar, Jr., McNair Law Firm, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Thurman Van Lilly appeals the district court's order accepting the report 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 Lilly v. Schwartz, No. CA-03-2526-2-17AJ (D.S.C. March 30, 2005). 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