¶1 Ferris G. Singley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * Singley v. Hodges, No. *147 CA-99-3120 (D.S.C. July 20, 2000). 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED.
¶3 We note that the district court’s opinion refers to multiple plaintiffs. Although there were other plaintiffs listed on the complaint, Sing-ley was not entitled to represent others. See Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975). Further, only Singley signed *147 the notice of appeal, so he is the only Appellant. Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, this action resolves only those claims raised by Singley personally.