Case Name: David ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald F. FARLEY, Sheriff; K. Sears, Classification Officer; Shank, Classification Officer; Steven Shortell, Lt.; Kathryn Schwartz, RN, Head Nurse, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-01
Citations: 508 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 12-7510
Parties: David ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald F. FARLEY, Sheriff; K. Sears, Classification Officer; Shank, Classification Officer; Steven Shortell, Lt.; Kathryn Schwartz, RN, Head Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 508
Pages: 265–266

Head Matter:
David ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald F. FARLEY, Sheriff; K. Sears, Classification Officer; Shank, Classification Officer; Steven Shortell, Lt.; Kathryn Schwartz, RN, Head Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7510.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 1, 2013.
David Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Carlene Booth Johnson, Perry Law Firm, PC, Dill-wyn, Virginia; Wade Travis Anderson, Kevin Osborne Barnard, Frith, Anderson & Peake, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Atkins appeals the district court's order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Schwartz, granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendants Farley, Sears, Shank, and Shortell, and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Atkins v. Farley, No. 7:11cv00592, 2012 WL 3201895 (W.D.Va. Aug. 3, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.