Case Name: James C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George E. CURRIE; Michael Munns; Richard T. Jones; Tonia Rodgers; Tony C. Jones; James A. Reid; Shanticia Hawkins; George Turner; Betsy Branch; Marvin Thomas; Theodis Beck; Boyd Bennett; Virginia Lancaster; J.J. Haynes; Leigh Branch; Bullock; Hattie Pimpong; Eveline Faulk; Earl V. Echard; Joseph Lightsey, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-16
Citations: 112 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 04-7003
Parties: James C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George E. CURRIE; Michael Munns; Richard T. Jones; Tonia Rodgers; Tony C. Jones; James A. Reid; Shanticia Hawkins; George Turner; Betsy Branch; Marvin Thomas; Theodis Beck; Boyd Bennett; Virginia Lancaster; J.J. Haynes; Leigh Branch; Bullock; Hattie Pimpong; Eveline Faulk; Earl V. Echard; Joseph Lightsey, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
James C. MCNEILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George E. CURRIE; Michael Munns; Richard T. Jones; Tonia Rodgers; Tony C. Jones; James A. Reid; Shanticia Hawkins; George Turner; Betsy Branch; Marvin Thomas; Theodis Beck; Boyd Bennett; Virginia Lancaster; J.J. Haynes; Leigh Branch; Bullock; Hattie Pimpong; Eveline Faulk; Earl V. Echard; Joseph Lightsey, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-7003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 20, 2004.
Decided Nov. 16, 2004.
James C. McNeill, Appellant pro se.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James C. McNeill appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court dismissed as frivolous McNeill's claims concerning the lack of due process in disciplinary hearings and dismissed without prejudice McNeill's claims concerning the denial of out-of-cell exercise time. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McNeill v. Currie, No. CA-04-9-5-H (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2004). 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
Because McNeill challenges only the district court's decision concerning the denial of due process at the disciplinary hearings, our review is limited to that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).