
    Malcolm MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. STAPLETON; W.R. Hensley; Randy Mathena, Defendants-Appellees, and M. Stanford; B. Rarizee; K. Massey; D. Crabtree; Dr. Tatro; K. Givens, Defendants.
    No. 12-6724.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 20, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 23, 2012.
    Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Muhammad v. Stanford, No. 7:11-cv-00610-SGW-RSB, 2012 WL 669051 (W.D.Va. Feb. 29, 2012) & (Apr. 11, 2012). We deny the motion to file an amended complaint 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.  