Case Name: Alphonso HAYNESWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Michael Laubshire; Robert Ward; Jon Ozmint; Willie Eagleton; Redfearn Miller; Annie Sellars; Beverly Baker; Anthony Whiltington; Pamela D. McDowell; Officer Driggers; Officer Joseph; G. Rogers, Captain; K. Lear, Sergeant; Sergeant Thomas; Ms. Thomas; A. Graves; B. Miller, Mrs., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-30
Citations: 403 F. App'x 843
Docket Number: No. 10-6717
Parties: Alphonso HAYNESWORTH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Michael Laubshire; Robert Ward; Jon Ozmint; Willie Eagleton; Redfearn Miller; Annie Sellars; Beverly Baker; Anthony Whiltington; Pamela D. McDowell; Officer Driggers; Officer Joseph; G. Rogers, Captain; K. Lear, Sergeant; Sergeant Thomas; Ms. Thomas; A. Graves; B. Miller, Mrs., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 403
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
Alphonso HAYNESWORTH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Michael Laubshire; Robert Ward; Jon Ozmint; Willie Eagleton; Redfearn Miller; Annie Sellars; Beverly Baker; Anthony Whiltington; Pamela D. McDowell; Officer Driggers; Officer Joseph; G. Rogers, Captain; K. Lear, Sergeant; Sergeant Thomas; Ms. Thomas; A. Graves; B. Miller, Mrs., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-6717.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2010.
Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD and AGEE, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the distinct court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice 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. Haynesworth v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 8:10-cv-00507-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2010). We deny Haynesworth's motion for an order to show cause and 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.
The district court's order is a final, appealable order. See Young v. Nichols, 413 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir.2005).