
    Reed Anthony Kevin WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rayena SHEPPARD-OSWALD; Brian Oswald; Heather Hubert, in her individual and official capacities; Sergeant Scott Matheny, in his individual and official capacities; Officer M. Smoak, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Greenville County Sheriff's Department; Carolina Children’s House; Anthony Wrifford, in his individual and official capacities; Dickerson Center for Children, now known as Dickerson Children’s Advocacy Center Inc.; Jane Hemphill, in her individual and official capacities; Cayce Public Safety Department; Officer Drew Pinciaro, in his individual and official capacities; Greenville Rape Crisis Center, now known as Julie Valentine Center; Shauna Galloway, a/k/a Shauna Galloway-Williams, in her individual and official capacities; WYFF4 Greenville; Hearst Communications, Inc.; Hearst Properties Inc., Defendants, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor, Respondent.
    No. 17-6453
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 30, 2018
    Decided: February 16, 2018
    
      Donald L. Smith, DONALD SMITH LAW FIRM, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Carly Davis, CHAPMAN, HARTER & HAR-TER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; A. Johnston Cox,- Janice Holmes, GALLI-VAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reed Anthony Kevin Wright appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants on Wright’s third amended complaint alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution, in violation of South Carolina law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v. Sheppard-Oswald, No. 6:14-cv-04646-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 9 & 10, 2017). 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  