UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6850
JOHN WAYNE BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT LINDSEY; SERGEANT COREA; SERGEANT
CRENSHAW; L. SMITH; VENABLE,
Defendants- Appellees,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Gilmore; CAPTAIN
GOODE; M. HANKS, Lieutenant; B. HICKS, Ser-
geant; DAVID GEORGE; E. KIRKON; LIF; SHAW;
DUNN; E. MURRAY, Director, D.O.C.; E. MORRIS,
Deputy Director D.O.C.; JAMES BRIGGS, Manager-
Ombudsman Ser.; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Admin-
istrator; E. H. PALMER, Req. Ombuds.; J.
HOLMES, Req. Ombuds.; C. H. ALLEN, Req.
Ombuds.; WARDEN THOMPSON; HESLER, Assistant
Warden; CAPTAIN RAINEY; LIEUTENANT HAWKINS;
LIEUTENANT PULLEY; LIEUTENANT RIPPER; LIEU-
TENANT RICE; T. C. BULLOCK, Hearings Officer;
S. WHITTEN, Grieve. Coor.; S. HARRIS, Asst.
Grieve. Coor.; E. PENIC, Asst. Grieve. Coor.;
E. TUCK, Asst. Grieve. Coor.; H. LOVELACE,
Assist. Grieve. Coor.; T. KALLAM, Assist.
Grieve. Coor.; SERGEANT BOYD; D. CAMPBELL; V.
BRUMMEL; THOMPSON; C.O. THOMPSON; SERGEANT
CAREY; C.O. BOYD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-94-895-AM)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Wayne Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Vaughan Christopher Jones,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
John Wayne Brown appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
Brown v. Lindsey, No. CA-94-895-AM (E.D. Va. May 12, 1998). 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