Case Name: Nathaniel Harold GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; County of Berkeley; Family Court; Paul Labarron; Sandy Holland; Jack A. Landis; Wayne M. Creech; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-30
Citations: 393 F. App'x 106
Docket Number: No. 10-6627
Parties: Nathaniel Harold GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; County of Berkeley; Family Court; Paul Labarron; Sandy Holland; Jack A. Landis; Wayne M. Creech; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 106–107

Head Matter:
Nathaniel Harold GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; County of Berkeley; Family Court; Paul Labarron; Sandy Holland; Jack A. Landis; Wayne M. Creech; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6627.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2010.
Nathaniel Harold Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Harold Green appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Green v. South Carolina, No. 6:10-cv-00396-TLW, 2010 WL 1346412 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2010). 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.