Case Name: Troy Luke BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Unit Warden; Pam Smith, Mail Clerk; Scott Lewis, Unit Major, sued in their official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-03
Citations: 368 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 09-7558
Parties: Troy Luke BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Unit Warden; Pam Smith, Mail Clerk; Scott Lewis, Unit Major, sued in their official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Troy Luke BURKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Unit Warden; Pam Smith, Mail Clerk; Scott Lewis, Unit Major, sued in their official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-7558.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2010.
Decided: March 3, 2010.
Troy Luke Burks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Luke Burks appeals the district court's orders: (1) denying his motions to alter or amend judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and for a temporary restraining order and (2) adopting 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. Burks v. Rushton, No. 3:08-cv-03025-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2009). We deny Burks' motions to appoint counsel, for stay pending appeal, for injunctive relief pending appeal, to stay the mandate and for reconsideration of prior order deferring action on his original motion for appointment of counsel. Burks v. Rushton, No. 3:08-CV-03025-HMH (D.S.C. July 21, 2009). 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.