
    Elridge V. HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Jon E. Ozmint, Director of SCDC; Gary A. Boyd, Director of Inmate Services; David M. Tatarsky, Deputy General Counsel; Mary Coleman, Inmate Grievance Branch Chief; Betty Robinson, Administrative Coordinator of Program Services; Oscar A. Faulkenberry, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution; Calvin Anthony, Lee Correctional Institution; Charles Burton, Lee Correctional Institution Associate Warden; NFN Adams, Kershaw Correctional Institution Officer; Barbara Ricketson, Lee Correctional Institution Mailroom Clerk; Donna Mitchell, Lee Correctional Institution Institutional Inmate Grievance Coordinator formerly Kershaw Correctional Institution’s Inmate Grievance Coordinator; Donald Dease, Former Institutional Division II Director; Gary D. Maynard, Former SCDC Director; John Lane, Former Kershaw Correctional Institution Mailroom Supervisor; Nikki Mccougar, Former Kershaw Correctional Institution Mailroom Clerk; Shari Hinson, Kershaw Correctional Institution Mailroom Clerk; Tony L. Strawhorn Program Services Deputy Director; William L. Eagleton, Program Services Deputy Director, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-7826.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
    Decided: Feb. 23, 2007.
    Eldridge V. Hills, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Nikole Deanna Haltiwanger, Thomas Lowndes Pope, Riley Pope & Laney, LLC, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Elridge V. Hills appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hills v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:05-cv-00319 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 2006). 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.  