Case Name: Grady Edward LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden; Joette D. Scarborough, Assistant Director of Institutional Classification; Arthur Houston, State Classification, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-20
Citations: 203 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: No. 06-6996
Parties: Grady Edward LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden; Joette D. Scarborough, Assistant Director of Institutional Classification; Arthur Houston, State Classification, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 466–467

Head Matter:
Grady Edward LLOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Willie L. EAGLETON, Warden; Joette D. Scarborough, Assistant Director of Institutional Classification; Arthur Houston, State Classification, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6996.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2006.
Grady Edward Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, Willcox, Buyck & Williams, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Grady Edward Lloyd appeals from the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lloyd v. Eagleton, No. 9:05-cv-02314-DCN, 2006 WL 1341223 (D.S.C. May 16, 2006). However, because Lloyd's action was dismissed upon a grant of summary judgment to the Defendants, we vacate the district court's order to the extent it assessed a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART.