Case Name: Eugene R. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer NEAL; NFN Sewell; Major Riley; Warden Johnson; NFN Mullenax; Nurse Beifielt; Doctor Edwards; NFN Montgomery; D. Sbyant; NFN Mast; NFN Hamilton; Nurse Crocker; NFN Williams; NFN McGrew; Bobo; Captain Miller; NFN Wade; NFN Smith; NFN Isgrigg; NFN Ultman; Male Nurse Green; Lieutenant Hart; NFN Kuminsky, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-28
Citations: 31 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 01-7926
Parties: Eugene R. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer NEAL; NFN Sewell; Major Riley; Warden Johnson; NFN Mullenax; Nurse Beifielt; Doctor Edwards; NFN Montgomery; D. Sbyant; NFN Mast; NFN Hamilton; Nurse Crocker; NFN Williams; NFN McGrew; Bobo; Captain Miller; NFN Wade; NFN Smith; NFN Isgrigg; NFN Ultman; Male Nurse Green; Lieutenant Hart; NFN Kuminsky, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
Eugene R. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer NEAL; NFN Sewell; Major Riley; Warden Johnson; NFN Mullenax; Nurse Beifielt; Doctor Edwards; NFN Montgomery; D. Sbyant; NFN Mast; NFN Hamilton; Nurse Crocker; NFN Williams; NFN McGrew; Bobo; Captain Miller; NFN Wade; NFN Smith; NFN Isgrigg; NFN Ultman; Male Nurse Green; Lieutenant Hart; NFN Kuminsky, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7926.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2002.
Decided March 28, 2002.
Eugene R. Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Vinton DeVane Lide, Vinton D. Lide & Associates, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eugene R. Daniels appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Daniels v. Neal, No. CA-99-4084-7 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 19, 2001 & entered Oct. 25, 2001). 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.