Case Name: James Randall BRAWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; Steven Lewis, sued in his individual capacity; J. Parker, sued in his individual capacity; Frank Mursier, sued in his individual capacity; Harrison, sued in his individual capacity; James Sligh, sued in his individual capacity; Dennis Patterson, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-23
Citations: 585 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 14-6643
Parties: James Randall BRAWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; Steven Lewis, sued in his individual capacity; J. Parker, sued in his individual capacity; Frank Mursier, sued in his individual capacity; Harrison, sued in his individual capacity; James Sligh, sued in his individual capacity; Dennis Patterson, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
James Randall BRAWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, sued in his individual capacity; Steven Lewis, sued in his individual capacity; J. Parker, sued in his individual capacity; Frank Mursier, sued in his individual capacity; Harrison, sued in his individual capacity; James Sligh, sued in his individual capacity; Dennis Patterson, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6643.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2014.
James Randali Brawner, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Lin-demann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Randall Brawner appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Defendants' summary judgment motion on Brawner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against them. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Brawner v. Cartledge, No. 5:12-cv-01889-RMG, 2014 WL 958658 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2014). 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.