Lloyd Steven Lane v. William R. Barker Emilio Pagan Ronald Godwin Billy Yard Batten Mitch Lowery Theodore Swann Mike Walker G. Wayne Spears John Williams Larry Mathis Malcolm L. Debnam Melissa Sellars Officer Lamm, and J.R. Hunt Kathy Mercer Linwood Tedder Kim Edwards Linda Miasto J. Coleman Patricia Mabrey Margaret Williamson William Britt Ray Jernigan Henry Cambell Anthony Single Tary Randy Cribb Henry Corr Stevens Carol Whitaker John R. Mills Clifton Davenport C.R. Lincoln Larry W. Moore Lynn Phillips James L. Miller Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. J.A. Dobbin Pat Chavis

97 F.3d 1447

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lloyd Steven LANE, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
William R. BARKER; Emilio Pagan; Ronald Godwin; Billy
Yard Batten; Mitch Lowery; Theodore Swann; Mike Walker;
G. Wayne Spears; John Williams; Larry Mathis; Malcolm L.
Debnam; Melissa Sellars; Officer Lamm, Defendants--Appellees,
and
J.R. Hunt; Kathy Mercer; Linwood Tedder; Kim Edwards;
Linda Miasto; J. Coleman; Patricia Mabrey; Margaret
Williamson; William Britt; Ray Jernigan; Henry Cambell;
Anthony Single Tary; Randy Cribb; Henry Corr Stevens;
Carol Whitaker; John R. Mills; Clifton Davenport; C.R.
Lincoln; Larry W. Moore; Lynn Phillips; James L. Miller;
Franklin E. Freeman, Jr.; J.A. Dobbin; Pat Chavis, Defendants.

No. 96-6616.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 22, 1996.
Decided Sept. 5, 1996.

Lloyd Steven Lane, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 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 on the reasoning of the district court. Lane v. Barker, No. CA-93-431-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 1996). 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.