Case Name: T. Terell BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY U.S.; U.S. Attorney; Linda Holms; Darrell A. Basinger; Jane Doe, Warden or Superintendent; SCDC, all in, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-22
Citations: 466 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 11-7336
Parties: T. Terell BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY U.S.; U.S. Attorney; Linda Holms; Darrell A. Basinger; Jane Doe, Warden or Superintendent; SCDC, all in, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
T. Terell BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY U.S.; U.S. Attorney; Linda Holms; Darrell A. Basinger; Jane Doe, Warden or Superintendent; SCDC, all in, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-7336.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2012.
T. Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Julio Cesar Salvador, Jr., Bae Systems Products Group, Jacksonville, Florida; Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, Willcox Buyck & Williams, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Edward L. Birk, Marks Gray, PA, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
T. Terell Bryan appeals the district court's 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. Bryan v. Defense Tech. US, No. 1:10-cv-02834-TLW, 2011 WL 4435579 (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 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.