Case Name: Stephen SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; H.A. Langston, Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-20
Citations: 119 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 04-7535
Parties: Stephen SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; H.A. Langston, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Stephen SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; H.A. Langston, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-7535.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 20, 2005.
Stephen Shirley, Appellant pro se. Steven Michael Pruitt, Robert W. Cone, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Stephen Shirley appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Shirley v. Langston, No. 03-1630-22BD (D.S.C., filed Aug. 25, 2004 & entered Aug. 26, 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