Case Name: William Arthur HENLEY, a/k/a William Henley, a/k/a William H. Henley, formerly #247392 and #178816, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald ATKINSON, Officer of Richland County Sheriff Department sued in individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-16
Citations: 326 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 08-8335
Parties: William Arthur HENLEY, a/k/a William Henley, a/k/a William H. Henley, formerly #247392 and #178816, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gerald ATKINSON, Officer of Richland County Sheriff Department sued in individual capacity, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
William Arthur HENLEY, a/k/a William Henley, a/k/a William H. Henley, formerly #247392 and #178816, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gerald ATKINSON, Officer of Richland County Sheriff Department sued in individual capacity, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 08-8335.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2009.
Decided: June 16, 2009.
William Arthur Henley, Appellant Pro Se.
William Henry Davidson, II, Robert David Garfield, Joel Steve Hughes, Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Arthur Henley appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action, pursuant to the jury's verdict. Henley has not provided a transcript, and he fails to establish a basis to have a transcript prepared at government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). We have reviewed the existing record and the issues Henley raises on appeal, and find no grounds for appellate relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See Henley v. Atkinson, No. 8:06-cv-02420-BHH (D.S.C. filed Oct. 1, 2008 & entered Oct. 2, 2008). We deny Henley's motions for a transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel and 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.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).