Case Name: Michael D. GOINS, a/k/a Michael Goins, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant HORNE, in his individual and official capacity; Corporal Byrd, in his individual and official capacity; Officer Sewell, in his individual and official capacity; Officer Lindsey, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-06
Citations: 592 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 14-7341
Parties: Michael D. GOINS, a/k/a Michael Goins, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant HORNE, in his individual and official capacity; Corporal Byrd, in his individual and official capacity; Officer Sewell, in his individual and official capacity; Officer Lindsey, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
Michael D. GOINS, a/k/a Michael Goins, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant HORNE, in his individual and official capacity; Corporal Byrd, in his individual and official capacity; Officer Sewell, in his individual and official capacity; Officer Lindsey, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7341.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 6, 2015.
Michael D. Goins, Appellant Pro Se.
James Victor McDade, Doyle, O’Rourke, Tate & McDade, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Goins appeals the district court's order substantially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Goins v. Horne, No. 4:13-cv-01269-RMG, 2014 WL 4273319 (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 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.