Case Name: Larry W. SCOTT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Major JONES; Lieutenant Clawson; Lieutenant Murant, or Marant; Officer Greene; Officer Anderson; Officer Hopkins, or Hodges; Officer Jeffcoat; John And Jane Does; Dr. Cheri, Defendants-Appellees, and Officer Hodges, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-20
Citations: 600 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 14-7644
Parties: Larry W. SCOTT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Major JONES; Lieutenant Clawson; Lieutenant Murant, or Marant; Officer Greene; Officer Anderson; Officer Hopkins, or Hodges; Officer Jeffcoat; John And Jane Does; Dr. Cheri, Defendants-Appellees, and Officer Hodges, Defendant.
Judges: Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
Larry W. SCOTT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Major JONES; Lieutenant Clawson; Lieutenant Murant, or Marant; Officer Greene; Officer Anderson; Officer Hopkins, or Hodges; Officer Jeffcoat; John And Jane Does; Dr. Cheri, Defendants-Appellees, and Officer Hodges, Defendant.
No. 14-7644.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2015.
Decided: April 20, 2015.
Larry W. Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Justin Tyler Bagwell, William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James E. Par-ham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry W. Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Scott v. Jones, No. 5:13-cv-02870-DCN, 2014 WL 4823850 (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 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.
DISMISSED.