Case Name: Douglas B. SEIBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nannie MOHEAD, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Frank Roach, Unit Manager/Building Supervisor; Jesse Arrington, Correctional Officer; Milton Reed, VCE General Manager; Doug Chapman, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Belton Williams, VCE Industrial Group Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-27
Citations: 502 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 12-7726
Parties: Douglas B. SEIBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nannie MOHEAD, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Frank Roach, Unit Manager/Building Supervisor; Jesse Arrington, Correctional Officer; Milton Reed, VCE General Manager; Doug Chapman, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Belton Williams, VCE Industrial Group Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
Douglas B. SEIBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nannie MOHEAD, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Frank Roach, Unit Manager/Building Supervisor; Jesse Arrington, Correctional Officer; Milton Reed, VCE General Manager; Doug Chapman, S2 VCE Woodshop Manager; Belton Williams, VCE Industrial Group Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7726.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.
Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.
Douglas B. Seibert, Appellant Pro Se.
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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Douglas B. Seibert 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 deny Seibert's motion to appoint counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Seibert v. Mohead, No. 2:12-cv-00399-RAJ-TEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 4, 2012). 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.