Case Name: Richard Powers LINCOLN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel E. BAILEY, Sheriff; Aramark Corporation; B. Smith Scott; L. Pagen, Major; M. Smith, Captain; J. Ploger, Captain; J. Maness, Sergeant; D. Truesdale, Sergeant; G. Rogers, Sergeant; P. Igwesi, Detention Officer; J. Sage, Detention Officer; K. Johnson, Detention Officer; C. Smith, Detention Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-05
Citations: 339 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 09-6602
Parties: Richard Powers LINCOLN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel E. BAILEY, Sheriff; Aramark Corporation; B. Smith Scott; L. Pagen, Major; M. Smith, Captain; J. Ploger, Captain; J. Maness, Sergeant; D. Truesdale, Sergeant; G. Rogers, Sergeant; P. Igwesi, Detention Officer; J. Sage, Detention Officer; K. Johnson, Detention Officer; C. Smith, Detention Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Richard Powers LINCOLN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel E. BAILEY, Sheriff; Aramark Corporation; B. Smith Scott; L. Pagen, Major; M. Smith, Captain; J. Ploger, Captain; J. Maness, Sergeant; D. Truesdale, Sergeant; G. Rogers, Sergeant; P. Igwesi, Detention Officer; J. Sage, Detention Officer; K. Johnson, Detention Officer; C. Smith, Detention Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6602.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 30, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2009.
Richard Powers Lincoln, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Powers Lincoln 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. Lincoln v. Bailey, No. 3:09-cv-00058-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2009). 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.