UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7387
GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COUNSELS OF A-7-8 UNIT AND B-1 UNIT; D.
GARRHARTY, Warden; UNIT MANAGERS, A-7-8, B-1;
LIEUTENANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN SER-
GEANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN COMMANDING
OFFICERS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN LAW
LIBRARY MANAGER, A Unit, B Unit,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 97-7414
GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COUNSELS OF A-7-8 UNIT AND B-1 UNIT; D.
GARRHARTY, Warden; UNIT MANAGERS, A-7-8, B-1;
LIEUTENANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN SER-
GEANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN COMMANDING
OFFICERS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN LAW
LIBRARY MANAGER, A Unit, B Unit,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-97-26-2)
Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998
Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Ac-
cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Green
v. Counsels, No. CA-97-26-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 17 & 30, 1997). We deny
Appellant’s motion for an ex parte hearing. 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