Case Name: Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Beverly Stubbs, R.N.; Dr. Arthur Davis; Clinton Brockington; Dr. Sami Hussan; Jane Welch; Dr. Donald Micklos; Lynda Padgett; Lititia Owens; Lequecia Falcon; Paula Y. Smith; Ms. Carmen S. Hendricks; Dr. Keyser; Peter Woglam, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-28
Citations: 707 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 17-7023
Parties: Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Beverly Stubbs, R.N.; Dr. Arthur Davis; Clinton Brockington; Dr. Sami Hussan; Jane Welch; Dr. Donald Micklos; Lynda Padgett; Lititia Owens; Lequecia Falcon; Paula Y. Smith; Ms. Carmen S. Hendricks; Dr. Keyser; Peter Woglam, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Beverly Stubbs, R.N.; Dr. Arthur Davis; Clinton Brockington; Dr. Sami Hussan; Jane Welch; Dr. Donald Micklos; Lynda Padgett; Lititia Owens; Lequecia Falcon; Paula Y. Smith; Ms. Carmen S. Hendricks; Dr. Keyser; Peter Woglam, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-7023
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 28, 2017
Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent.in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Alonzo Tunstall appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing TunstalTs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tunstall v. Perry, No. 1:16-cv-01434-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C, July 25, 2017). We dispense with oi'al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED