Case Name: Kenneth J. JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. AI CANNON, Jr., Sheriff; Mitch P. Lucas, Detention Center Administrator; A. Hanson, Major at Detention Center; Captain Gathers, at Detention Center; Captain Beatty, at Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-06
Citations: 390 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 10-6469
Parties: Kenneth J. JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Al CANNON, Jr., Sheriff; Mitch P. Lucas, Detention Center Administrator; A. Hanson, Major at Detention Center; Captain Gathers, at Detention Center; Captain Beatty, at Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Kenneth J. JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Al CANNON, Jr., Sheriff; Mitch P. Lucas, Detention Center Administrator; A. Hanson, Major at Detention Center; Captain Gathers, at Detention Center; Captain Beatty, at Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6469.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 6, 2010.
Kenneth J.- Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III, Grimball & Cabaniss, Charleston, South Carolina; Harry V. Ragsdale, Corrigan & Chandler, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth J. Johnson, Jr., 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. Cannon, No. 4:08-cv-00776-PMD, 2010 WL 936706 (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 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.