Case Name: Mack Neil MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden Burtt; D. McGee, Lieutenant; K. Myers, Sergeant; Jenkin, Correctional Officer; Fordham, Correctional Officer; Andrew Lloyd, Jr., Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-02
Citations: 332 F. App'x 18
Docket Number: No. 09-6387
Parties: Mack Neil MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden Burtt; D. McGee, Lieutenant; K. Myers, Sergeant; Jenkin, Correctional Officer; Fordham, Correctional Officer; Andrew Lloyd, Jr., Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 18–19

Head Matter:
Mack Neil MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden Burtt; D. McGee, Lieutenant; K. Myers, Sergeant; Jenkin, Correctional Officer; Fordham, Correctional Officer; Andrew Lloyd, Jr., Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6387.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 2, 2009.
Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Jacqueline Gott-fried Grau, Grimball & Cabaniss, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mack Neil Myers appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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. See Myers v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., No. 0:08-cv-00589-HMH, 2009 WL 348746 (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2009). We deny as moot Myers's motion to deny Defendants' motion to remand. 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.