John Rodgers Burnley v. Edward W. Murray Edward C. Morris Wade D. Blankenship Richard A. Young Dr. Amonette Dr. Walker Dr. Morris Frances L. Ashley Nurse Meade Jimmy Hylton Robert W. Fry Eugene F. Poutasse the Medical Society of Virginia Review Organization, Inc., and Bland Correctional Center Virginia Department of Corrections David L. Smith Betty Lane P. L. Huffman K. A. Polinsky J. A. Hubbard Director of the State Treasury C. D. Larsen R. L. Chewning F. Newberry H. E. Wiley J. A. Mustard Officer Reeves

960 F.2d 145

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John Rodgers BURNLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY; Edward C. Morris; Wade D. Blankenship;
Richard A. Young; Dr. Amonette; Dr. Walker; Dr. Morris;
Frances L. Ashley; Nurse Meade; Jimmy Hylton; Robert W.
Fry; Eugene F. Poutasse; the Medical Society of Virginia
Review Organization, Inc., Defendants-Appellees,
and
BLAND CORRECTIONAL CENTER; Virginia Department of
Corrections; David L. Smith; Betty Lane; P. L. Huffman;
K. A. Polinsky; J. A. Hubbard; Director of the State
Treasury; C. D. Larsen; R. L. Chewning; F. Newberry; H.
E. Wiley; J. A. Mustard; Officer Reeves, Defendants.

No. 92-6175.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 6, 1992
Decided: April 20, 1992

John Rodgers Burnley, Appellant Pro Se.

Karen Lynn Lebo, Gayl Branum Carr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Richard Edward Ladd, Jr., Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Virginia; Lawrence Joseph Bracken, II, Cassandra Carol Collins, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

John Rodgers Burnley appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). 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. Burnley v. Murray, No. CA-91-176-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 1991, Feb. 6, 1992). 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