Case Name: Eric L. TOLBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant BURKE; Sergeant Williams; Correctional Officer Brumell; Correctional Officer Phifer; Correctional Officer Royster; Correctional Officer Moony; Correctional Officer Fields; Correctional Officer Melton; Dennis Rowland; Captain Austin, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-16
Citations: 261 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 07-7401
Parties: Eric L. TOLBERT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Lieutenant BURKE; Sergeant Williams; Correctional Officer Brumell; Correctional Officer Phifer; Correctional Officer Royster; Correctional Officer Moony; Correctional Officer Fields; Correctional Officer Melton; Dennis Rowland; Captain Austin, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Eric L. TOLBERT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Lieutenant BURKE; Sergeant Williams; Correctional Officer Brumell; Correctional Officer Phifer; Correctional Officer Royster; Correctional Officer Moony; Correctional Officer Fields; Correctional Officer Melton; Dennis Rowland; Captain Austin, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-7401.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 8, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 16, 2008.
Eric L. Tolbert, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eric L. Tolbert appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants 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 Tolbert v. Burke, No. 5:06-ct-03077-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2007). 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.