Case Name: William MCGHEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STOUT, Correctional Officer; Wynn Williams; Anderson, Correctional Officer; Ferguson, Correctional Officer; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; John Doe, III; D. Taylor, Correctional Officer; Mr. Hensley, Hearing Officer; Stanley Young, Warden; Mosco Wynn, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-02
Citations: 156 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 05-6498
Parties: William MCGHEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STOUT, Correctional Officer; Wynn Williams; Anderson, Correctional Officer; Ferguson, Correctional Officer; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; John Doe, III; D. Taylor, Correctional Officer; Mr. Hensley, Hearing Officer; Stanley Young, Warden; Mosco Wynn, Correctional Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
William MCGHEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STOUT, Correctional Officer; Wynn Williams; Anderson, Correctional Officer; Ferguson, Correctional Officer; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; John Doe, III; D. Taylor, Correctional Officer; Mr. Hensley, Hearing Officer; Stanley Young, Warden; Mosco Wynn, Correctional Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6498.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 2, 2005.
William McGhee, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William McGhee appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McGhee v. Stout, No. CA-03-426-7-JLK (W.D.Va. Jan. 13, 2005). 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.
DISMISSED