UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6448
JOHN W. TODD, a/k/a Kristopher S. Kollyns,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. MCMILLAN, Former head social worker, Broad
River Correctional Institute of the SCDC;
PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, SCDC; GEORGE
MARTEN, III, Warden, BRCI; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY,
Unit Manager, BR R&E, SCDC; AL WATERS, Chief,
Internal Affairs, SCDC; BILL WHITE, Deputy
Warden, BRCI, SCDC; ROBERT BAXLEY, Investiga-
tor, BRCI, SCDC; DR. BAKER, Head doctor, BRCI,
SCDC; FITTS FREEMAN, Contraband Officer, ACI,
SCDC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-91-2119-3-20-BC)
Submitted: May 7, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John W. Todd, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Callaway Hart, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Charles
Elford Carpenter, Jr., Deborah Harrison Sheffield, RICHARDSON,
PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Columbia, South Carolina; Jeffrey
Lawrence Payne, TURNER, PADGETT, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Florence,
South Carolina; Benjamin Davis McCoy, HOWSER, NEWMAN & BEASLEY,
L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Todd appeals from the district court's orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion awarding summary judg-
ment to eight of the nine named Defendants and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Todd v. McMillan, No. CA-91-2119-3-20-BC (D.S.C. Nov. 15,
1993). With respect to Todd's claim against defendant McMillan, we
have reviewed the record and the proceedings before the district
court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dis-
pense 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
2