Case Name: Timothy LLOYD, a/k/a Luxurious X, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barton VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel; Judy C. Anderson, Director of Program Services; Richard E. Smith, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; Joseph Counts, Associate Warden; Herb Johns, Institution Grievance Coordinator; Debbie N. Maness, Mailroom Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-16
Citations: 121 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 04-7715
Parties: Timothy LLOYD, a/k/a Luxurious X, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barton VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel; Judy C. Anderson, Director of Program Services; Richard E. Smith, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; Joseph Counts, Associate Warden; Herb Johns, Institution Grievance Coordinator; Debbie N. Maness, Mailroom Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Timothy LLOYD, a/k/a Luxurious X, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barton VINCENT, Deputy General Counsel; Judy C. Anderson, Director of Program Services; Richard E. Smith, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution; Joseph Counts, Associate Warden; Herb Johns, Institution Grievance Coordinator; Debbie N. Maness, Mailroom Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-7715.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2005.
Timothy Lloyd, Appellant pro se.
William Benson Darwin, Jr., Holcombe, Bomar, Gunn & Bradford, PA, Spartan-burg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy Lloyd 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 Lloyd v. Vincent, No. CA-03-1546-4 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 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