Case Name: Charles TYSON, a/k/a Charles Kevin Bruce Tyson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden Willie L. EAGLETON, of Evans Correctional Institution; Director Jon E. Ozmint; Sharon Patterson, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Ethel Redfern, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-06
Citations: 268 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 07-7435
Parties: Charles TYSON, a/k/a Charles Kevin Bruce Tyson, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. Warden Willie L. EAGLETON, of Evans Correctional Institution; Director Jon E. Ozmint; Sharon Patterson, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Ethel Red-fern, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 268
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Charles TYSON, a/k/a Charles Kevin Bruce Tyson, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. Warden Willie L. EAGLETON, of Evans Correctional Institution; Director Jon E. Ozmint; Sharon Patterson, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Ethel Red-fern, Grievance Coordinator, Defendants — Appellees.
No. 07-7435.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2008.
Decided: March 6, 2008.
Charles Tyson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Jonathan Bridgmon, Ruskin C. Foster, McCutchen, Blanton, Johnson & Barnette, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Tyson appeals 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Tyson v. Eagleton, No. 6:06-cv-01686-PMD, 2007 WL 2477337 (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 2007). 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.