Case Name: Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted HULL; R. Michelle Lewis; Martin, Sergeant; John Doe/Jane Doe Recreation Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Director of Medical Services; John Doe/Jane Doe Cleaning Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Food Services Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Unit Nurse; Northern Neck Regional Jail Board Authority Members; Lynn Sudduth, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-30
Citations: 576 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 14-6310
Parties: Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted HULL; R. Michelle Lewis; Martin, Sergeant; John Doe/Jane Doe Recreation Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Director of Medical Services; John Doe/Jane Doe Cleaning Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Food Services Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Unit Nurse; Northern Neck Regional Jail Board Authority Members; Lynn Sudduth, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 298–298

Head Matter:
Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted HULL; R. Michelle Lewis; Martin, Sergeant; John Doe/Jane Doe Recreation Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Director of Medical Services; John Doe/Jane Doe Cleaning Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Food Services Supervisor; John Doe/Jane Doe Unit Nurse; Northern Neck Regional Jail Board Authority Members; Lynn Sudduth, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6310.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2014.
Decided: June 30, 2014.
Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Broderick Coleman Dunn, Alexander Francuzenko, Cook Craig & Francuzenko, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Matthews v. Hull, No. 1:13-cv-00450-LO-JFA (E.D.Va. Feb. 12, 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.