Case Name: Timothy GRIMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED ONION STATE PRISON; Department of Corrections; Danny Damron; Ronald Fowler; Jay McConnell; Alan McCowan; Jeffrey Phillips; Eric Smith; William Sykes; David Taylor; Page True, Warden; William Wright; Randy Boyd, Defendants-Appellees, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-15
Citations: 206 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 06-6317
Parties: Timothy GRIMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED ONION STATE PRISON; Department of Corrections; Danny Damron; Ronald Fowler; Jay McConnell; Alan McCowan; Jeffrey Phillips; Eric Smith; William Sykes; David Taylor; Page True, Warden; William Wright; Randy Boyd, Defendants-Appellees, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 241–241

Head Matter:
Timothy GRIMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED ONION STATE PRISON; Department of Corrections; Danny Damron; Ronald Fowler; Jay McConnell; Alan McCowan; Jeffrey Phillips; Eric Smith; William Sykes; David Taylor; Page True, Warden; William Wright; Randy Boyd, Defendants-Appellees, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendant.
No. 06-6317.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 15, 2006.
Timothy Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Grimes 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. Grimes v. Red Onion State Prison, No. 7:05-cv-00036-SGW-MFU (W.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2006). 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.