¶1 Grady Edward Lloyd appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lloyd v. Eagleton, No. 9:05-cv-02314-DCN, 2006 WL 1341223 (D.S.C. May 16, 2006). However, because Lloyd’s action was dismissed upon a grant of summary judgment to the Defendants, we vacate the district court’s order to the extent it assessed a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART.