Case Name: Jathiyah Abdur-Rahman AL-BAYYINAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain Marshall HUDSON; Lieutenant Donnie R. Raynor; Sergeant B. Bynum; Boyd Bennett; Marvin L. Polk, Warden, Defendants-Appellees, and R.C. Lee, Warden, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-08
Citations: 253 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 06-7828
Parties: Jathiyah Abdur-Rahman AL-BAYYINAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain Marshall HUDSON; Lieutenant Donnie R. Raynor; Sergeant B. Bynum; Boyd Bennett; Marvin L. Polk, Warden, Defendants—Appellees, and R.C. Lee, Warden, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 337–337

Head Matter:
Jathiyah Abdur-Rahman AL-BAYYINAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain Marshall HUDSON; Lieutenant Donnie R. Raynor; Sergeant B. Bynum; Boyd Bennett; Marvin L. Polk, Warden, Defendants—Appellees, and R.C. Lee, Warden, Defendant.
No. 06-7828.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 9, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 8, 2007.
Jathiyah abdur-Rahman al-Bayyinah, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jathiyah abdur-Rahman al-Bayyinah appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of corrections officials in al-Bayyinah's 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) action alleging violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Al-Bayyinah v. Hudson, No. 5:02-ct-00462-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2006). We also deny al-Bayyinah's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.