Case Name: Malcolm MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Corrections Officer SMITH; Harold W. Clarke; Randall Mathena; Younce (Unit Manager); Lambert, Building Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-15
Citations: 587 F. App'x 80
Docket Number: No. 14-7052
Parties: Malcolm MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Corrections Officer SMITH; Harold W. Clarke; Randall Mathena; Younce (Unit Manager); Lambert, Building Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 80–81

Head Matter:
Malcolm MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Corrections Officer SMITH; Harold W. Clarke; Randall Mathena; Younce (Unit Manager); Lambert, Building Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7052.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 15, 2014.
Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant pro se.
Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Muhammad v. Corrections Officer Smith, No. 7:13-cv00578-JLK-RSB (W.D.Va. Mar. 14 & June 3, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and.legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Muhammad's First Amendment claim that his cell was searched in retaliation for his outspoken and litigious nature is also subject to dismissal because this allegation is unsupported and speculative. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74-75 (4th Cir.1994).