Jones v. Smith

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6126 STEPHEN T. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. SMITH, the Captain of the Burke County Jail, Morgantown, North Carolina; VERA DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; SANDY DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; DIANN DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; CATHY DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; CANDY DOE, Cor- rectional Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity; PHILLIS BANNER, Nurse at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capac- ity; JOHN DOE 1, Dietician at the Burke County Jail, individually and in his official capac- ity; JANE DOE 1, Dietician at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capac- ity; JOHN DOE 2, Sergeant at the Burke County Jail, individually and in his official capac- ity; JANE DOE 2, Sergeant at the Burke County Jail, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-193-4-MU) 2 Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: 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 and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Smith, No. CA-95-193-4-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3