UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7247
DONALD SYLVESTER GROSS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Correc-
tions; SEWALL SMITH, Warden; EUGENE NUTH, War-
den; JOSEPH WILSON, Assistant Warden; CAPTAIN
LONG; LIEUTENANT ADAMS; S. PRESBURY, Lieuten-
ant; LENA KENT, Sargeant; DONALD THOMAS,
Sargeant; R. LAWSON, Sargeant; WILLIAM LEWIS,
Sargeant; SARGEANT RUSSELL; S. HARLEE, Sar-
geant; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SNELLING; J.
ALSTON, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER BRIGHT; R. SANDERS, Correctional
Officer; D. NORRIS, Correctional Officer;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OTIS; MARJORIE WILLIAMS,
Sargeant, Administrative Remedy Coordinator;
RICHARD DUNCAN, Headquarters Administrative
Remedy Coordinator; MCAC MAIL STAFF PERSONNEL;
JANEL LEE, Administrative Remedy Coordinator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
96-3758-S)
Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Sylvester Gross, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-
Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief
on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint, denying his motion to
compel discovery, and denying his motions for appointment of coun-
sel. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially
on the reasoning of the district court. Gross v. Lanham, No. CA-96-
3758-S (D. Md. Aug. 22, 1997). Further, we find that the district
court properly exercised its discretion to deny Appellant's motions
to compel discovery and for appointment of counsel. 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
2