Case Name: Tyrone Lamar ROBERSON, a/k/a Tyrone L. Roberson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner Jon E. Ozmint, etc & al. of Lee Correctional Inst.; SCDC Office of General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-04
Citations: 396 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 10-6361
Parties: Tyrone Lamar ROBERSON, a/k/a Tyrone L. Roberson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner Jon E. Ozmint, etc & al. of Lee Correctional Inst.; SCDC Office of General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 968–968

Head Matter:
Tyrone Lamar ROBERSON, a/k/a Tyrone L. Roberson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Commissioner Jon E. Ozmint, etc & al. of Lee Correctional Inst.; SCDC Office of General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6361.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2010.
Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parker McLean, Clarke, Johnson, Peterson, & McLean, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Lamar Roberson 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. Roberson v. South Carolina, No. 8:09-cv-01333-CMC, 2010 WL 679070 (D.S.C. Feb. 24, 2010). We deny Robinson's motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript. 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.