Case Name: Angelo B. HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Anthony J. Padula; John J. Brooks; Bruce Oberman; Ronnie Cribb; Darryl Cain, Sergeant of SMU at L.C.I.; Christopher Godfrey, Officer of SMU at L.C.I., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-28
Citations: 406 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 10-7216
Parties: Angelo B. HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Anthony J. Padula; John J. Brooks; Bruce Oberman; Ronnie Cribb; Darryl Cain, Sergeant of SMU at L.C.I.; Christopher Godfrey, Officer of SMU at L.C.I., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
Angelo B. HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT; Anthony J. Padula; John J. Brooks; Bruce Oberman; Ronnie Cribb; Darryl Cain, Sergeant of SMU at L.C.I.; Christopher Godfrey, Officer of SMU at L.C.I., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-7216.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.
Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Barry Johnson, Lee Erter Wilson Holler & Smith, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court's interlocutory order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Ham's motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ham v. Ozmint, No. 6:10-cv-01095-DCN-KFM, 2010 WL 3394387 (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 2010). 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.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2006).