Case Name: Ernest Lee CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin REESE; Arthur L. Thomas; Geraldine Steedley; Thomas Dobson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-02
Citations: 414 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 10-7245
Parties: Ernest Lee CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin REESE; Arthur L. Thomas; Geraldine Steedley; Thomas Dobson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 518–518

Head Matter:
Ernest Lee CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin REESE; Arthur L. Thomas; Geraldine Steedley; Thomas Dobson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-7245.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2011.
Decided: March 2, 2011.
Ernest Lee Carroll, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, MBR Law, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Lee Carroll 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. Carroll v. Reese, No. 9:09-cv-00199-PMD, 2010 WL 3399888 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 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.