Charles McCray v. Robert Means, M.D., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Representative of Prison Health Services Medical Staff Leonard Fox, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Administrator of Baltimore City Jail Medical Services Staff Paul Davis, Warden, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Party to the Kaufman's Modified Consolidated Decree Prison Health Services, in Its Official Capacity as a Health Care Provider and Contractor of Dr. Robert Means

900 F.2d 253
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Charles McCray, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert MEANS, M.D., Individually and in his official
capacity as representative of Prison Health Services Medical
Staff; Leonard Fox, Individually and in his official
capacity as administrator of Baltimore City Jail Medical
Services Staff; Paul Davis, Warden, Individually and in his
official capacity as party to the Kaufman's modified
consolidated decree; Prison Health Services, In its
official capacity as a Health Care Provider and contractor
of Dr. Robert Means, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-7694.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 15, 1989.
Decided March 8, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (C/A No. 88-106-S).

Charles McCray, appellant pro se.

Emanuel Morrie Levin, Gilbert & Levin; Gary Carlson Duvall; Kenneth Franklin Spence, III, Miles & Stockbridge; James Stewart Ruckle, Jr., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Charles McCray appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McCray v. Means, CA-88-106-S (D.Md. June 8, 1989). 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.

AFFIRMED