UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7542
BEVERLY RICARDO MANGUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
L. W. HUFFMAN; J. B. TAYLOR; D. C. STEWART; A.
L. CRAWFORD; SERGEANT BERRY; H. BOOTH-BROWN;
C/O CARTER, JR.; G. DEDRICK; LYNN COX; G. P.
HACTON; LIEUTENANT JONES; M. W. MURPHY; P. N.
KNIGHT, Captain; S. W. HOLLOR; T. S. MILLER;
F. S. ROBINSON; T. STEWART; C/O PROCTOR; L.
SHEFFER; ASSISTANT WARDEN JARVIS; S. FARRISH;
C/O KEY; C/O HAROLD; SERGEANT HENRY; L.
PAINTER; CAPTAIN SPITLER; R.R. HOLLOWAY; C/O
EUTSLER; P. JOHNSON; C/O WALTERS; R. DAWSON;
J. LEE; L. M. SAUNDERS; P. MASSIE; C/O SPEARS;
R. L. FRADY; J. H. LYLE, Lieutenant; C/O
FLETCHER; C/O GARRETT; SERGEANT SLIVER;
SERGEANT TAYLOR; D. SWISHER; R. BOYER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SERGEANT HENNY; D. N. FOLEY; C/O ALLEN;
SERGEANT HARRIS; K. BAILEY; UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF
THE APPEALS UNIT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CA-94-403-R)
Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996
Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beverly Ricardo Mangum, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of dis-
cretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. Mangum v. Huffman, No. CA-94-403-R
(W.D. Va. Sept. 5 & 15, 1995). 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 deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Mangum v. Huffman
Combined Opinion