Case Name: Virgil L. PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; Page-Kincaid Public Service District, a public utility; Kenneth B. Fox, Chairman; John P. David, Secretary; James A. Kincaid, Jr., Treasurer; Barton Jackson, Jr., Plant Manager/Operator; Dorothy Jeffers, Bookkeeper, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-25
Citations: 81 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 03-2080
Parties: Virgil L. PAYNE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; Page-Kincaid Public Service District, a public utility; Kenneth B. Fox, Chairman; John P. David, Secretary; James A. Kincaid, Jr., Treasurer; Barton Jackson, Jr., Plant Manager/Operator; Dorothy Jeffers, Bookkeeper, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
Virgil L. PAYNE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; Page-Kincaid Public Service District, a public utility; Kenneth B. Fox, Chairman; John P. David, Secretary; James A. Kincaid, Jr., Treasurer; Barton Jackson, Jr., Plant Manager/Operator; Dorothy Jeffers, Bookkeeper, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-2080.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Nov. 25, 2003.
Virgil L. Payne, pro se.
Jeffrey Kent Phillips, Robert L. Bailey, II, Steptoe & Johnson, Charleston, West Virginia; Philip J. Tissue, Oak Hill, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Virgil L. Payne appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Payne's motion for general relief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Payne v. West Virginia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, No. CA-03-6-2 (S.D.W.Va. July 29, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED