Case Name: Alexander PASTENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.L. SPROUSE, SC Trooper; BC Magistrate Nancy D. Sadler; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Michaud; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Cooler; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Cregan; Jonathan Brown, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-31
Citations: 393 F. App'x 119
Docket Number: No. 10-1606
Parties: Alexander PASTENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.L. SPROUSE, SC Trooper; BC Magistrate Nancy D. Sadler; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Michaud; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Cooler; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Cregan; Jonathan Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 119–119

Head Matter:
Alexander PASTENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.L. SPROUSE, SC Trooper; BC Magistrate Nancy D. Sadler; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Michaud; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Cooler; BC Sheriff Deputy NFN Cregan; Jonathan Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1606.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2010.
Alexander Pastene, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, Scott & Payne Law Firm, Walterboro, South Carolina; Mary Bass Lohr, Howell, Gibson & Hughes, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina; Sterling Gray-don Davies, Clary Edward Rawl, Jr., McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alexander Pastene 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. Pastene v. Sprouse, No. 0:09-cv-1390-PMD, 2010 WL 1344971 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 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.