Case Name: Curtis Dale RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Willie Eagleton, individually and officially; Captain Rogers, et al. individually and officially; Robin Chavis, individually and officially, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 09-8017
Parties: Curtis Dale RICHARDSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Willie Eagleton, individually and officially; Captain Rogers, et al. individually and officially; Robin Chavis, individually and officially, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 451–451

Head Matter:
Curtis Dale RICHARDSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Willie Eagleton, individually and officially; Captain Rogers, et al. individually and officially; Robin Chavis, individually and officially, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-8017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2010.
Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin Stewart, Riley, Pope & Laney, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Dale Richardson appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., No. 4:08-cv-02597-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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.