Case Name: Edgar SEARCY, a/k/a Edgar Joe Searcy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NFN SKINNER; United States of America; United States Attorney General; Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden FCI Bennettsville; Warden FCI Estill; Unknown Employees, of U.S. Department of Health; Carlos Brownlee; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-31
Citations: 409 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 09-6286
Parties: Edgar SEARCY, a/k/a Edgar Joe Searcy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NFN SKINNER; United States of America; United States Attorney General; Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden FCI Bennettsville; Warden FCI Estill; Unknown Employees, of U.S. Department of Health; Carlos Brownlee; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 693–693

Head Matter:
Edgar SEARCY, a/k/a Edgar Joe Searcy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NFN SKINNER; United States of America; United States Attorney General; Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden FCI Bennettsville; Warden FCI Estill; Unknown Employees, of U.S. Department of Health; Carlos Brownlee; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6286.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2010.
Decided: Jan. 31, 2011.
Edgar Searcy, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees; Carlos Brownlee, Appellee Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Searcy 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. Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:07-cv-03347-GRA, 2008 WL 5248420 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2009). 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.