Case Name: Brian Keith NESBITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Tyger River Correctional Institution; Tim Riley, Warden Tyger River Correctional; William R. Byars, Jr., Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Richard Turner; John E. Ozmint; Gary Lane; Laura Caldwell; S. Edmisten; Sergeant Mcmorris; FSD Fowler; David Tatarsky, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-22
Citations: 568 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 14-6114
Parties: Brian Keith NESBITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Tyger River Correctional Institution; Tim Riley, Warden Tyger River Correctional; William R. Byars, Jr., Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Richard Turner; John E. Ozmint; Gary Lane; Laura Caldwell; S. Edmisten; Sergeant Mcmorris; FSD Fowler; David Tatarsky, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
Brian Keith NESBITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Tyger River Correctional Institution; Tim Riley, Warden Tyger River Correctional; William R. Byars, Jr., Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Richard Turner; John E. Ozmint; Gary Lane; Laura Caldwell; S. Edmisten; Sergeant Mcmorris; FSD Fowler; David Tatarsky, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2014.
Decided: April 22, 2014.
Brian Keith Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brian Keith Nesbitt appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nesbitt v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 0:13-cv-02456-RMG (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2014). 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.