Case Name: Richard Lee SWINEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. BADGETT, Defendant-Appellee, and Keith W. Davis; Burnette, Ms.; Grievance Coordinator; Gene Johnson, Director Department of Corrections; Kenneth E. Morgenstern, Surgery Director; Neal, Mr.; Sgt.; Tucker, Mr.; c/o; Carole E. Wallace, Grievance Coordinator; Fred Schilling and Stephens, Director Prison Health Services, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-23
Citations: 443 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 11-6556
Parties: Richard Lee SWINEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. BADGETT, Defendant-Appellee, and Keith W. Davis; Burnette, Ms.; Grievance Coordinator; Gene Johnson, Director Department of Corrections; Kenneth E. Morgenstern, Surgery Director; Neal, Mr.; Sgt.; Tucker, Mr.; c/o; Carole E. Wallace, Grievance Coordinator; Fred Schilling and Stephens, Director Prison Health Services, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
Richard Lee SWINEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. BADGETT, Defendant-Appellee, and Keith W. Davis; Burnette, Ms.; Grievance Coordinator; Gene Johnson, Director Department of Corrections; Kenneth E. Morgenstern, Surgery Director; Neal, Mr.; Sgt.; Tucker, Mr.; c/o; Carole E. Wallace, Grievance Coordinator; Fred Schilling and Stephens, Director Prison Health Services, Defendants.
No. 11-6556.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2011.
Richard Lee Swiney, Appellant Pro Se. Rosalie Fessier, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Swiney appeals the district court's order 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. Swiney v. Badgett, No. 1:09-cv-00926-LMB-JFA, 2011 WL 1086386 (E.D.Va. Mar. 22, 2011). Swiney's motion for summary judgment is denied. 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.