Kevin Herriott appeals the district courts order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Herriotts claims for mail tampering, denial of access to the courts, seizure of legal materials, and denial of recreation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The magistrate judge further recommended that claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference be allowed to proceed to discovery. Conducting a de novo review of the dismissed claims, the district court adopted the magistrate judges recommendation, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Herriott v. Stephen, No. 6:19-cv-00750-DCN (D.S.C. June 24, 2019).
Following discovery on the remaining claims, the magistrate judge recommended granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The district court accepted that recommendation and granted summary judgment to Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Herriott v. Stephen, No. 6:19-cv-00750-DCN (D.S.C. filed July 14, 2020 & entered July 15, 2020). We deny Herriotts motions for a preliminary injunction and a physical examination.
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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.