Case Name: Theotis Marquette JOHNSON, a/k/a Prince Justice Foundation Allah, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John JABE, Deputy Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Larry Huffman; Kathleen Bassett; R.C. Mathena; F. Bailey; M. Hattfield, Sgt.; T. Higgins; D. Vass, Defendants-Appellees, and K. Price, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-06
Citations: 456 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 11-6887
Parties: Theotis Marquette JOHNSON, a/k/a Prince Justice Foundation Allah, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John JABE, Deputy Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Larry Huffman; Kathleen Bassett; R.C. Mathena; F. Bailey; M. Hattfield, Sgt.; T. Higgins; D. Vass, Defendants—Appellees, and K. Price, Defendant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 318–318

Head Matter:
Theotis Marquette JOHNSON, a/k/a Prince Justice Foundation Allah, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John JABE, Deputy Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Larry Huffman; Kathleen Bassett; R.C. Mathena; F. Bailey; M. Hattfield, Sgt.; T. Higgins; D. Vass, Defendants—Appellees, and K. Price, Defendant.
No. 11-6887.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2011.
Theotis Marquette Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Lara Kate Jacobs, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theotis Johnson 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. Johnson v. Jabe, No. 7:09-cv-00300-SGW, 2011 WL 2493763 (W.D.Va. June 22, 2011). 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.