Case Name: Stanley M. BALLENGER, a/k/a Stanley Mark Ballenger, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradley A. NORTON, Oconee County Attorney; Sallie C. Smith, Clerk of Court in Oconee County; Daniel E. Grigg, Attorney at Law, DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-30
Citations: 238 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 07-6928
Parties: Stanley M. BALLENGER, a/k/a Stanley Mark Ballenger, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradley A. NORTON, Oconee County Attorney; Sallie C. Smith, Clerk of Court in Oconee County; Daniel E. Grigg, Attorney at Law, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
Stanley M. BALLENGER, a/k/a Stanley Mark Ballenger, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradley A. NORTON, Oconee County Attorney; Sallie C. Smith, Clerk of Court in Oconee County; Daniel E. Grigg, Attorney at Law, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 07-6928.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2007.
Stanley M. Ballenger, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stanley M. Ballenger appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000) his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice, denying Ballenger's motions for discovery and for appointment of counsel as moot, and deeming this case a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ballenger v. Norton, No. 6:06-3349-RBH, 2007 WL 1462186 (D.S.C. May 16, 2007). 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.