Case Name: Larry L. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Mailroom Coordinator of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Gary D. Maynard, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-23
Citations: 82 F. App'x 856
Docket Number: No. 03-7135
Parties: Larry L. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Mailroom Coordinator of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Gary D. Maynard, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
Larry L. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Mailroom Coordinator of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Gary D. Maynard, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-7135.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 23, 2003.
Larry L. Pressley, Appellant pro se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett & Poston, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and vacated in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Larry L. Pressley seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and to the extent that Pressley's objections to the magistrate judge's report were sufficient to preserve appellate review, there was no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pressley v. Doe, No. CA-02-4020 (D.S.C. July 16, 2003); see also Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Because, however, Pressley's action was dismissed upon a grant of summary judgment to the Defendants, we vacate the district court's order to the extent it assessed a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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 IN PART; VACATED IN PART.