
    Andrew D. WENMOTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ovid Wesley DUNCAN, Jr., Librarian; Larry McBride, Correctional Officer II; Kenny Aikens, Correctional Hearing Officer; Diana Robin Miller, Associate Warden of Programs; Teresa Waid, Warden; Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner; Charlene Sotak, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees. Andrew D. Wenmoth, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ovid Wesley Duncan, Jr., Librarian; Larry McBride, Correctional Officer II; Kenny Aikens, Correctional Hearing Officer; Diana Robin Miller, Associate Warden of Programs; Teresa Waid, Warden; Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner; Charlene Sotak, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees. Andrew D. Wenmoth, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ovid Wesley Duncan, Jr., Librarian; Larry McBride, Correctional Officer II; Kenny Aikens, Correctional Hearing Officer; Diana Robin Miller, Associate Warden of Programs; Teresa Waid, Warden; Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner; Charlene Sotak, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 09-7750, 09-7826, 10-6073.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 13, 2010.
    Decided: June 9, 2010.
    Andrew D. Wenmoth, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Buck, April Joy Wheeler, Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Andrew D. Wenmoth appeals the district court’s orders 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 deny Wen-moth’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wenmoth v. Duncan, No. 3:08-cv-00182-JPB-JSK, 2009 WL 2707579 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 26, 2009 & 2009 WL 5125202, Dec. 18, 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.  