Case Name: Tekoa T. GLOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim HODGES, Governor of South Carolina; Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina; Druanne White, Solicitor of the Tenth Circuit; Gene Taylor, Sheriff of Anderson County; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 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 518
Docket Number: No. 04-7640
Parties: Tekoa T. GLOVER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jim HODGES, Governor of South Carolina; Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina; Druanne White, Solicitor of the Tenth Circuit; Gene Taylor, Sheriff of Anderson County; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
Tekoa T. GLOVER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jim HODGES, Governor of South Carolina; Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina; Druanne White, Solicitor of the Tenth Circuit; Gene Taylor, Sheriff of Anderson County; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-7640.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided Feb. 15, 2005.
Tekoa T. Glover, Appellant pro se. James Victor McDade, Doyle, O’Rourke, Tate & McDade, Pa, Anderson, South Carolina, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Tekoa T. Glover 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 Glover v. Hodges, No. CA-03-2151 (D.S.C. Sept. 9, 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