Case Name: Christopher GAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KUSTANBAUER, Correctional Officer; Officer Phillips, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #2, Correctional Officer; K. Laybourne, Dr., Medical Administrator; Officer Kulfman, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #1, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 702 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 17-6662
Parties: Christopher GAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KUSTANBAUER, Correctional Officer; Officer Phillips, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #2, Correctional Officer; K. Laybourne, Dr., Medical Administrator; Officer Kulfman, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #1, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 702
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
Christopher GAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer KUSTANBAUER, Correctional Officer; Officer Phillips, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #2, Correctional Officer; K. Laybourne, Dr., Medical Administrator; Officer Kulfman, Correctional Officer; Unknown Escorting Officer #1, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6662
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 16, 2017
Decided: November 20, 2017
Christopher Gayton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Gayton appeals the district comet's orders dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gayton v. Kustanbauer, No. 1:16-cv-01577-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2017; filed Apr. 11, 2017, entered Apr. 12, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED