UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7265
WILFORD ANDREW MATHERLY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. C. BASKFIELD, C/O; C. E. DUNMOODIE, Cap-
tain; D. R. GUILLORY, Warden; R. ANGELONE,
Director; E. MURRAY; W. ROGERS, Regional
Administrator; L. JARVIS, Assistant Warden; L.
KELLY, Assistant Warden; C. LEWIS, Major; V.
WASHINGTON, Treatment Supervisor; D. ANDERSON,
Operations Officer; B. CARABALLA, Counselor;
M. GROSS, Food Services Supervisor; MONISE
SIMONS, Food Service Supervisor; VERNON MAYS,
Food Service Supervisor; CARL HUNT, Food
Service Supervisor; LEON REED, Food Service
Supervisor; NURSE SMITH, Medical Personnel;
NURSE HELLER, Medical Personnel; NURSE JONES,
Medical Personnel; NURSE WEBB; P. MARLOWE,
Nurse; NURSE DERDIVANIS; NURSE JOHNSON; S.
HURLEY, Nurse; D. GATELY, Nurse; G. LOGIN,
Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-189-2)
Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996
Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilford Andrew Matherly, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne
Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Sandra
Morris Holleran, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond,
Virginia; Malcolm Pollard McConnell, III, Anisa Patrice Kelley,
COTTER, FISCELLA & MCCONNELL, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) 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.
Matherly v. Baskfield, No. CA-94-189-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 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.
AFFIRMED
3