UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2007 DENNIS A. GIVENS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SCOTT R. SMITH, individually and collectively; KEITH C. GAMBLE, individually and collectively; STEPHEN M. FOWLER, individually and collectively; D. LUKE FURBEE, individually and collectively; OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, individually and collectively; OFFICER J. E. DEAN, individually and collectively; J. C. WEAVER, a/k/a Jack C. Weaver, individually and collectively; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE, individually and collectively; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT, individually and collectively; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON, individually and collectively; KENNETH W. BLAKE, individually and collectively, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00145-FPS-JES) Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015 Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis A. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Kenneth Louis Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Dennis A. Givens appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing Givens’ complaint in part and granting summary judgment in part. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Givens v. Weaver, No. 5:12-cv-00145-FPS- JES (N.D.W. Va. July 1 & Aug. 27, 2014). We deny Givens’ motion for sanctions and to strike. 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 3