Case Name: Norman RATTLIFF, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald McPEAK, Superintendent, New River Jail; N.H. Pelkins, Correctional Officer River Valley Regional Jail; John Doe, Jr., Physician, New River Valley Regional Jail, Valley Regional Supervisor, New., Primary Care, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-23
Citations: 405 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 09-7645
Parties: Norman RATTLIFF, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald McPEAK, Superintendent, New River Jail; N.H. Pelkins, Correctional Officer River Valley Regional Jail; John Doe, Jr., Physician, New River Valley Regional Jail, Valley Regional Supervisor, New., Primary Care, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
Norman RATTLIFF, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald McPEAK, Superintendent, New River Jail; N.H. Pelkins, Correctional Officer River Valley Regional Jail; John Doe, Jr., Physician, New River Valley Regional Jail, Valley Regional Supervisor, New., Primary Care, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-7645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 8, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2010.
Norman Rattliff, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Norman Rattliff, Jr., appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2006), for failure to state a claim, and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Rattliff v. McPeak, No. 7:08-cv-00551-gec-mfu, 2008 WL 5427760 (W.D.Va. Dec. 31, 2008) & (Mar. 19, 2009). Further, we deny Rattliff s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.