UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7038

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

BERNARD MCKIE, Warden of Kirkland Correctional Institution; WILLIAM R. BYARS, Director of SCDC; HENRY M. HERLONG, JR.; US MARSHALS; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States; HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; MD MCCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; NIKKI HALEY, Governor of South Carolina; ALLEN WILSON, Attorney General of South Carolina; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; J. PAGE; A. NEAL, Attorney; H. A. HINTON, Director Of Parole Hearings; S B GLOVER, Director of SCDPPPS; FIVE PAROLE JUDGES; 212 DEFENDANTS; 29 FEDERAL FOURTH CIRCUIT JUDGES; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BEVERLY WHITFIELD, Clerk of Court; R L MCINTOSH, Judge; OCONEE COUNTY; 1600 DEFENDANTS; ANDERSON COUNTY; JEANETTE W. MCBRIDE, Clerk of Court for Richland County; 45 ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (8:11-cv-00797-JMC)

Submitted: January 25, 2012 Decided: February 9, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Julian Edward Rochester appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing this action raising various civil rights, habeas

corpus and mandamus claims. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated

by the district court. Rochester v. McKie, No. 8:11-cv-00797-

JMC (D.S.C. July 8, 2011). We deny the motions for appointment

of counsel, to grant appeal, for writ of prohibition, and to

compel. 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.

DISMISSED

3