33:T54e,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Curtis King v. Official McPherson, 17-6320","datePublished":"2017-05-26","legislationDate":"2017-05-26","citation":"Curtis King v. Official McPherson, No. 17-6320 (4th Cir. May 26, 2017)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","description":"Read the full text of Curtis King v. Official McPherson (Curtis King v. Official McPherson, No. 17-6320 (4th Cir. May 26, 2017)). This legal opinion, filed in 2017-05-26, from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/curtis-king-v-official-mcpherson-4172244"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/curtis-king-v-official-mcpherson-4172244","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Curtis King v. Official McPherson, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Curtis King v. Official McPherson, No. 17-6320 (4th Cir. May 26, 2017)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}35:T53f,

*1 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. King appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. King v. McPherson , No. 0:15-cv-02358-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 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