Case Name: Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, a/k/a Kristopher S. Kollins, a/k/a John Wayne Todd, a/k/a Johnnie W. Todd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, an FBI agent; William D. Catoe; Calvin Anthony; Stanley B. Burt, Jr.; Charles Cepak; George Chastine; Jeff Bentley; Leroy Cartledge; Kenneth Chappelle, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 65 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 03-6332
Parties: Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, a/k/a Kristopher S. Kollins, a/k/a John Wayne Todd, a/k/a Johnnie W. Todd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, an FBI agent; William D. Catoe; Calvin Anthony; Stanley B. Burt, Jr.; Charles Cepak; George Chastine; Jeff Bentley; Leroy Cartledge; Kenneth Chappelle, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 496–496

Head Matter:
Kris Sarayn KOLLYNS, a/k/a Kristopher S. Kollins, a/k/a John Wayne Todd, a/k/a Johnnie W. Todd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, an FBI agent; William D. Catoe; Calvin Anthony; Stanley B. Burt, Jr.; Charles Cepak; George Chastine; Jeff Bentley; Leroy Cartledge; Kenneth Chappelle, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6332.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina; Christie Newman Barrett, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kris Sarayn Kollyns appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Kollyns' civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kollyns v. Doe, No. CA-02-672-3-17-BC (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2003). 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.