Case Name: Lord VERSATILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta KELLY, Warden (Former), Sussex I State Prison; A.F. Miller, Operations Officer, Warden-Designee, Sussex I State Prison; R.W. Sprouse, Co, Investigator, Sussex I State Prison; W. Brown, Hearings Officer, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-25
Citations: 556 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 13-7587
Parties: Lord VERSATILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta KELLY, Warden (Former), Sussex I State Prison; A.F. Miller, Operations Officer, Warden-Designee, Sussex I State Prison; R.W. Sprouse, Co, Investigator, Sussex I State Prison; W. Brown, Hearings Officer, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 556
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
Lord VERSATILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loretta KELLY, Warden (Former), Sussex I State Prison; A.F. Miller, Operations Officer, Warden-Designee, Sussex I State Prison; R.W. Sprouse, Co, Investigator, Sussex I State Prison; W. Brown, Hearings Officer, Sussex I State Prison, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-7587.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 20, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2014.
Lord Versatile, Appellant Pro Se.
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lord Versatile, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Versatile v. Kelly, No. 3:12-cv-00333-HEH, 2013 WL 4807554 (E.D.Va. Sept. 9, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.