Case Name: Clinton RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Corrections; Evelyn Seifert, Warden, Northern Regional Jail & Correctional Facility; Robert Knight, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 185 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 06-6181
Parties: Clinton RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Corrections; Evelyn Seifert, Warden, Northern Regional Jail & Correctional Facility; Robert Knight, Correctional Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Clinton RATLIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Corrections; Evelyn Seifert, Warden, Northern Regional Jail & Correctional Facility; Robert Knight, Correctional Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 20, 2006.
Clinton Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Cameron Petty, Stephanie Ann Jones, Rose Padden & Petty, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia; Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., West Virginia Division of Corrections, Charleston, West Virginia; David L. Wyant, Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clinton Ratliff appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985(3), 1986 (2000) as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Ratliff v. Rubenstein, No. 5:05-cv-00052-FPS (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 13, 2006). 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.