Case Name: James David FAIRCLOTH, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.C. LEE, Warden; Associate Warden McCabe; Captain Wilman; Captain Signal; Captain Kennedy; Sergeant Strickland; Sergeant Burrough; Officer Ellis; Officer Harris; Officer Page; Officer Nickles; Officer Williams, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-18
Citations: 227 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 06-7987
Parties: James David FAIRCLOTH, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R.C. LEE, Warden; Associate Warden McCabe; Captain Wilman; Captain Signal; Captain Kennedy; Sergeant Strickland; Sergeant Burrough; Officer Ellis; Officer Harris; Officer Page; Officer Nickles; Officer Williams, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
James David FAIRCLOTH, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R.C. LEE, Warden; Associate Warden McCabe; Captain Wilman; Captain Signal; Captain Kennedy; Sergeant Strickland; Sergeant Burrough; Officer Ellis; Officer Harris; Officer Page; Officer Nickles; Officer Williams, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-7987.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2007.
Decided: May 18, 2007.
James David Faircloth, Sr., Appellant pro se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Joseph Edward Elder, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James David Faircloth, Sr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Faircloth v. Lee, No. 5:04-ct-00608-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2006). 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.