Case Name: Jonathan OJEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. PROCTER, sued individually and as an Agent of Wexford Medical Sources; Tristen Tenny, sued individually and as Agent of Wexford Medical Resources; Adrian Hoke, sued individually and in his Official Capacity; Wexford Medical Sources, sued as a Corporation, working within the State of West Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-07
Citations: 449 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 11-6801
Parties: Jonathan OJEDA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. PROCTER, sued individually and as an Agent of Wexford Medical Sources; Tristen Tenny, sued individually and as Agent of Wexford Medical Resources; Adrian Hoke, sued individually and in his Official Capacity; Wexford Medical Sources, sued as a Corporation, working within the State of West Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
Jonathan OJEDA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. PROCTER, sued individually and as an Agent of Wexford Medical Sources; Tristen Tenny, sued individually and as Agent of Wexford Medical Resources; Adrian Hoke, sued individually and in his Official Capacity; Wexford Medical Sources, sued as a Corporation, working within the State of West Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6801.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 7, 2011.
Jonathan Ojeda, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Cameron Petty, Rose Padden & Petty, LC, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellees Procter and Tenny.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Ojeda appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ojeda v. Proctor, No. 2:10-cv-00126-JPB-DJJ, 2011 WL 2433359 (N.D. W. Va. June 16, 2011). 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.