Case Name: Larry Edward HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry GALLOWAY; Leroy Cartledge; FNU Curry; FNU Bush; Catherine Kendall; James Parker; Colie Rushton; Mary D. Anderson; FNU Squires; Barton Vincent; Gary D. Maynard; John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Doe 4, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-24
Citations: 431 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 11-6358
Parties: Larry Edward HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry GALLOWAY; Leroy Cartledge; FNU Curry; FNU Bush; Catherine Kendall; James Parker; Colie Rushton; Mary D. Anderson; FNU Squires; Barton Vincent; Gary D. Maynard; John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Doe 4, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 219–219

Head Matter:
Larry Edward HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry GALLOWAY; Leroy Cartledge; FNU Curry; FNU Bush; Catherine Kendall; James Parker; Colie Rushton; Mary D. Anderson; FNU Squires; Barton Vincent; Gary D. Maynard; John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3; John Doe 4, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6358.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2011.
Decided: May 24, 2011.
Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsely, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Edward Hendricks appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the court's previous order denying relief, on Hendricks' 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. Hendricks v. Galloway, No. 3:03-cv-00740-DCN, 2011 WL 585970 (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2011). 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.