Case Name: Alonzo KEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Badge 450 Phillip S. MIANO; Badge 545 Mathew Barnwell; Badge 520 Cpl Spann; Badge 159 Cpl Smith; Cpl Eagerton, Officers of Aiken Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina, State of; Aiken City Police Department, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-28
Citations: 515 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 12-2480
Parties: Alonzo KEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Badge 450 Phillip S. MIANO; Badge 545 Mathew Barnwell; Badge 520 Cpl Spann; Badge 159 Cpl Smith; Cpl Eagerton, Officers of Aiken Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina, State of; Aiken City Police Department, Defendants.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Alonzo KEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Badge 450 Phillip S. MIANO; Badge 545 Mathew Barnwell; Badge 520 Cpl Spann; Badge 159 Cpl Smith; Cpl Eagerton, Officers of Aiken Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees, and South Carolina, State of; Aiken City Police Department, Defendants.
No. 12-2480.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2013.
Decided: March 28, 2013.
Alonzo Key, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Daniel C. Plyler, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alonzo Key appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Key v. Miano, No. 1:11-cv-01613-DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2012). 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.