Case Name: Louis Ray CHAPMAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Western Regional Office; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center; Captain Smiley, Shift Commander; Sergeant Pritt, Building Sergeant (Supervisor); C/O Tyler; C/O Whitt; C/O Burch; Donald A. Vorgert, Food Service Director-A; Tom Sanders, Food Service Director-B, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-28
Citations: 231 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 07-6053
Parties: Louis Ray CHAPMAN, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Larry HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Western Regional Office; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center; Captain Smiley, Shift Commander; Sergeant Pritt, Building Sergeant (Supervisor); C/O Tyler; C/O Whitt; C/O Burch; Donald A. Vorgert, Food Service Director-A; Tom Sanders, Food Service Director-B, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
Louis Ray CHAPMAN, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Larry HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Western Regional Office; Daniel A. Braxton, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center; Captain Smiley, Shift Commander; Sergeant Pritt, Building Sergeant (Supervisor); C/O Tyler; C/O Whitt; C/O Burch; Donald A. Vorgert, Food Service Director-A; Tom Sanders, Food Service Director-B, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-6053.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2007.
Decided: June 28, 2007.
Louis Ray Chapman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Louis Ray Chapman, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chapman v. Huffman, No. 7:06-cv-00708-jlk, 2006 WL 3716793 (WD.Va. Dec. 14, 2006). 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.