Case Name: James Harold WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Annie Mae Sellers; Cecilia R. Reynolds; Pamela Phelps; A. Hardin, Inmate Grievance Administration; Dennis Patterson, SCDC Operations Coordinator; Beverly Baker, SCDC Office of General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-24
Citations: 476 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 12-6541
Parties: James Harold WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Annie Mae Sellers; Cecilia R. Reynolds; Pamela Phelps; A. Hardin, Inmate Grievance Administration; Dennis Patterson, SCDC Operations Coordinator; Beverly Baker, SCDC Office of General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
James Harold WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Annie Mae Sellers; Cecilia R. Reynolds; Pamela Phelps; A. Hardin, Inmate Grievance Administration; Dennis Patterson, SCDC Operations Coordinator; Beverly Baker, SCDC Office of General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-6541.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2012.
James Harold Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Nikole H. Boland, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Harold Williams 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. Williams v. Ozmint, No. 4:10-cv-02355-MBS, 2012 WL 554448 (D.S.C. Feb. 21, 2012). 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.