Case Name: Danny Rayburn SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF PICKENS; Sheriff David Stone, Pickens County Sheriff; Dewey Smith, Captain; Anderson County; Michael Sloan, Detective; Dan Rhodes; Greenville County; David Hanks, Detective; Larry Martin, Detective, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-02
Citations: 470 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 11-7391
Parties: Danny Rayburn SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COUNTY OF PICKENS; Sheriff David Stone, Pickens County Sheriff; Dewey Smith, Captain; Anderson County; Michael Sloan, Detective; Dan Rhodes; Greenville County; David Hanks, Detective; Larry Martin, Detective, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 126–126

Head Matter:
Danny Rayburn SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COUNTY OF PICKENS; Sheriff David Stone, Pickens County Sheriff; Dewey Smith, Captain; Anderson County; Michael Sloan, Detective; Dan Rhodes; Greenville County; David Hanks, Detective; Larry Martin, Detective, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-7391.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2012.
Decided: April 2, 2012.
Danny Rayburn Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman, Harter & Groves, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; James Victor McDade, Doyle, O’Rourke, Tate & McDade, PA, Anderson, South Carolina; J. Calhoun Pruitt, Jr., Pruitt and Pruitt, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Danny Rayburn Smith appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and for return of property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. County of Pickens, No. 8:10-cv02265-JMC, 2011 WL 3794285 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2011); (Oct. 26, 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.