Case Name: Kenneth POWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner; William S. Haines, Warden; Jerry Haney, Inmate Movement; Randy Shreves, Unit Manager; Unknown Unit D Counselors, at the time of the incident; Michael Jackson, Unit Counselor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-15
Citations: 120 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 04-7664
Parties: Kenneth POWELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner; William S. Haines, Warden; Jerry Haney, Inmate Movement; Randy Shreves, Unit Manager; Unknown Unit D Counselors, at the time of the incident; Michael Jackson, Unit Counselor, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
Kenneth POWELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner; William S. Haines, Warden; Jerry Haney, Inmate Movement; Randy Shreves, Unit Manager; Unknown Unit D Counselors, at the time of the incident; Michael Jackson, Unit Counselor, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-7664.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided Feb. 15, 2005.
Kenneth Powell, Appellant pro se. Charles Patrick Houdysehell, Jr., West Virginia Division of Corrections, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Powell appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Powell v. West Virginia Dep't of Corr., No. CA-02-67-2 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 17, 2004). 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