Case Name: Dewayne E. MOORE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James METTS, Sheriff; Oscar McIntosh, Detective, Defendants-Appellees. and Marc H. Westbrook, Administrative; Scott Whittle, Magistrate; William Shockley, Magistrate; Donald V. Myers, Solicitor; David Shawn Graham, Assistant Solicitor, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-17
Citations: 131 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 05-6008
Parties: Dewayne E. MOORE, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. James METTS, Sheriff; Oscar McIntosh, Detective, Defendants—Appellees. and Marc H. Westbrook, Administrative; Scott Whittle, Magistrate; William Shockley, Magistrate; Donald V. Myers, Solicitor; David Shawn Graham, Assistant Solicitor, Defendants.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
Dewayne E. MOORE, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. James METTS, Sheriff; Oscar McIntosh, Detective, Defendants—Appellees. and Marc H. Westbrook, Administrative; Scott Whittle, Magistrate; William Shockley, Magistrate; Donald V. Myers, Solicitor; David Shawn Graham, Assistant Solicitor, Defendants.
No. 05-6008.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 12, 2005.
Decided: May 17, 2005.
Dewayne E. Moore, Sr., Appellant pro se.
Barton Jon Vincent, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Dewayne E. Moore, Sr., 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. See Moore v. Metts, No. CA-03-2736-3-24BD (D.S.C. Dec. 3, 2004). 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