Case Name: William Morris GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam D. O'KELLY; William D. Catoe, Director of SCDC; Susan Litz, Accountant; Ivyl S. Hudson; Benjamin Montgomery; J. Munsford Scott; Ricky Harris; Jane Doe; Robert E. Ward; Kenny Green, Lieutenant; J. Rollings; Derwin Neasman; Officer Miller; Officer McDougal; Officer Robinson; Officer Sprattling, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-23
Citations: 6 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 00-7500
Parties: William Morris GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam D. O’KELLY; William D. Catoe, Director of SCDC; Susan Litz, Accountant; Ivyl S. Hudson; Benjamin Montgomery; J. Munsford Scott; Ricky Harris; Jane Doe; Robert E. Ward; Kenny Green, Lieutenant; J. Rollings; Derwin Neasman; Officer Miller; Officer McDougal; Officer Robinson; Officer Sprattling, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
William Morris GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam D. O’KELLY; William D. Catoe, Director of SCDC; Susan Litz, Accountant; Ivyl S. Hudson; Benjamin Montgomery; J. Munsford Scott; Ricky Harris; Jane Doe; Robert E. Ward; Kenny Green, Lieutenant; J. Rollings; Derwin Neasman; Officer Miller; Officer McDougal; Officer Robinson; Officer Sprattling, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7500.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.
Decided March 23, 2001.
William Morris Grant, pro se. Andrew Foster McLeod, Harris & McLeod, Cheraw, SC, for appellees.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Grant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Grant v. O'Kelly, No. CA-99-2755-3-24-BC (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2000). 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.