Case Name: James Randall BRAWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; Steven Lewis; J. Parker, sued in his individual capacity; Frank Mursier, sued in his individual capacity; Harrison, sued in his individual capacity; James Sligh, sued in his individual capacity; Dennis Patterson, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-29
Citations: 516 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 13-6066
Parties: James Randall BRAWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; Steven Lewis; J. Parker, sued in his individual capacity; Frank Mursier, sued in his individual capacity; Harrison, sued in his indi vidual capacity; James Sligh, sued in his individual capacity; Dennis Patterson, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
James Randall BRAWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; Steven Lewis; J. Parker, sued in his individual capacity; Frank Mursier, sued in his individual capacity; Harrison, sued in his indi vidual capacity; James Sligh, sued in his individual capacity; Dennis Patterson, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6066.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2018.
Decided: March 29, 2013.
James Randall Brawner, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Lin-demann, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Randall Brawner appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brawner v. Cartledge, No. 5:12-cv-01889-RMG-KDW, 2012 WL 6737191 (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 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.