Case Name: Dan OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BRAXTON, Warden; Keeling, Assistant Warden; Clark, Operational Officer; T. Fowlkes, Ombudsman; Wilmouth, Unit Manager; Mr. Gibbs, Unit Manager; Lieutenant Barbour; Teachy, Sargeant; R. Flemming, Regional Director; G.M. Johnson, Deputy Director; Wright, Magistrate, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-17
Citations: 20 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 01-6957
Parties: Dan OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BRAXTON, Warden; Keeling, Assistant Warden; Clark, Operational Officer; T. Fowlkes, Ombudsman; Wil-mouth, Unit Manager; Mr. Gibbs, Unit Manager; Lieutenant Barbour; Teachy, Sargeant; R. Flemming, Regional Director; G.M. Johnson, Deputy Director; Wright, Magistrate, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 20
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Dan OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. BRAXTON, Warden; Keeling, Assistant Warden; Clark, Operational Officer; T. Fowlkes, Ombudsman; Wil-mouth, Unit Manager; Mr. Gibbs, Unit Manager; Lieutenant Barbour; Teachy, Sargeant; R. Flemming, Regional Director; G.M. Johnson, Deputy Director; Wright, Magistrate, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6957.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 3, 2001.
Decided Oct. 17, 2001.
Dan Oliver, pro se.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dan Oliver appeals the district court's order denying relief^ on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). Oliver alleges that in retaliation for filing lawsuits against them, prison officials have barred his access to the grievance process. Even if Defendants refused to file the grievances in retaliation, Oliver has no cognizable injury on the face of the present record. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994); ACLU v. Wicomico County, 999 F.2d 780, 785 (4th Cir.1993). To the extent that he alleges claims against a state magistrate, such claims are meritless. Pressly v. Gregory, 831 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir.1987) (holding that magistrates enjoy absolute immunity for acts performed in judicial capacity). We therefore affirm the denial of relief under § 1915A. 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.