Case Name: Tessa R.R.G.C. CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Childress, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; Dana E. Herron, Inspector; Internal Affairs Office of the Professional Standards, The Charleston County Sheriffs Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-27
Citations: 540 F. App'x 191
Docket Number: No. 13-7066
Parties: Tessa R.R.G.C. CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Childress, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Dana E. Herron, Inspector; Internal Affairs Office of the Professional Standards, The Charleston County Sheriffs Office, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 191–191

Head Matter:
Tessa R.R.G.C. CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Childress, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Dana E. Herron, Inspector; Internal Affairs Office of the Professional Standards, The Charleston County Sheriffs Office, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-7066.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 27, 2013.
Tessa R.R.G.C. Childress, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tessa R.R.G.C. Childress appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 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. Childress v. Charleston Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. 2:13-cv-01008-SB, 2013 WL 3270642 (D.S.C. June 26, 2013). 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.
AFFIRMED.