Case Name: Freddy S. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Carter County Detention Center; Randy Binion, Chief Jailer-Carter County Detention Center; John Perrine, Supervising Marshall-United States Marshals Service; Brenda Wilburn, R.N.-Carter County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-17
Citations: 450 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 11-1733
Parties: Freddy S. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Carter County Detention Center; Randy Binion, Chief Jailer—Carter County Detention Center; John Perrine, Supervising Marshall—United States Marshals Service; Brenda Wilburn, R.N.—Carter County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Freddy S. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Carter County Detention Center; Randy Binion, Chief Jailer—Carter County Detention Center; John Perrine, Supervising Marshall—United States Marshals Service; Brenda Wilburn, R.N.—Carter County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-1733.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 13, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 17, 2011.
Freddy S. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia; R. Stephen McGinnis, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC, Greenup, Kentucky, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Freddy S. Campbell appeals the district court's order denying his second motion for relief from final judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Campbell v. United States, No. 2:09-cv-00503, 2011 WL 2471008 (S.D.W.Va. June 20, 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.