Case Name: Mark Ryland DOWDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; John T. Casteen, III; Teresa A. Sullivan; Elizabeth Olmstead; Jeffrey Magnum; Rachel Adams; Nancy Knoell; Lisa Slate; Hollis Lumpkin; Angela Boyd; Mark Ratzlaff; Leslie Riggs; Beverly Fries; Gregory Bures; James Satira, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-30
Citations: 473 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 11-7699
Parties: Mark Ryland DOWDY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; John T. Casteen, III; Teresa A. Sullivan; Elizabeth Olmstead; Jeffrey Magnum; Rachel Adams; Nancy Knoell; Lisa Slate; Hollis Lumpkin; Angela Boyd; Mark Ratzlaff; Leslie Riggs; Beverly Fries; Gregory Bures; James Satira, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
Mark Ryland DOWDY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; John T. Casteen, III; Teresa A. Sullivan; Elizabeth Olmstead; Jeffrey Magnum; Rachel Adams; Nancy Knoell; Lisa Slate; Hollis Lumpkin; Angela Boyd; Mark Ratzlaff; Leslie Riggs; Beverly Fries; Gregory Bures; James Satira, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-7699.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2012.
Decided: May 30, 2012.
Mark Ryland Dowdy, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark Ryland Dowdy appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Dowdy v. Univ. of Va., No. 7:11-cv-00549-MFU-RSB, 2011 WL 6102339 (WD.Va. entered Dec. 6, 2011 & filed Dec. 7, 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.
DISMISSED.