
    Eric CHILDRESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. PETTIFORD, FCI Bennettsville Warden in his individual and official capacity; Assistant Warden Smith; Assistant Warden Masaconi; Denise Bawling, Captain, in her individual and official capacity; D. Schantz, Shu Lieutenant, in his individual and official capacity; L. Miller, Lieutenant, in his individual and official capacity; D. Moore, Lieutenant Sr. Officer, in his individual and official capacity; Luis Berrias, Doctor, in his individual and official capacity; Julia Berrias, Doctor, in her individual and official capacity; H. Hansen, Nurse, in her individual and official capacity; Correctional Officer Cash, in his individual and official capacity; Correctional Officer Young, in his individual and official capacity; Correctional Officer Douglas, in his individual and official capacity; Correctional Officer Jones, in his individual and official capacity; Correctional Officer Cartwright, in his individual and official capacity; J. Streeval, in his individual and official capacity; Case Manager Streamer, in his individual and official capacity; Counselor Lewis, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-6216.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
    Decided: Aug. 27, 2010.
    Eric Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Childress appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Childress v. Pettiford, No. 4:08-cv-01001-SB, 2010 WL 412547 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2010). 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.  