Case Name: Terry HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POWHATAN CORR. CENTER WARDEN/SUPERINTENDENT, sued in their individual and official capacities; Mr. Graham, Counselor, sued in their individual and official capacities; V. Evans, L.T.; Sgt. R. Jackson; c/o Taliaferro; Sgt. Green; P. Gurney, Asst. Warden; Mr. Mahon, Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 412 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 10-7522
Parties: Terry HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POWHATAN CORR. CENTER WARDEN/SUPERINTENDENT, sued in their individual and official capacities; Mr. Graham, Counselor, sued in their individual and official capacities; V. Evans, L.T.; Sgt. R. Jackson; c/o Taliaferro; Sgt. Green; P. Gurney, Asst. Warden; Mr. Mahon, Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 572–572

Head Matter:
Terry HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POWHATAN CORR. CENTER WARDEN/SUPERINTENDENT, sued in their individual and official capacities; Mr. Graham, Counselor, sued in their individual and official capacities; V. Evans, L.T.; Sgt. R. Jackson; c/o Taliaferro; Sgt. Green; P. Gurney, Asst. Warden; Mr. Mahon, Warden, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-7522.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2011.
Terry Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Hendricks appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendricks v. Powhatan Corr. Ctr., No. 2:10-cv-00445-RBS-FBS (E.D.Va. Oct. 19, 2010). 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.