UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JON TERENCE CONRAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES LEE FOSTER, Sheriff; MICHAEL
COULTER, Chief Deputy Solicitor;
BETTY STROM, Deputy Solicitor;
No. 98-7412
DAVID E. RUSHTON, Director of
Corrections; COUNTY OF NEWBERRY,
SOUTH CAROLINA; JACKIE BOWERS,
Clerk; GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, sued as
unknown members of Governor's
Office; SUZIE NICHOLS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CA-97-1619-4-06BE)
Submitted: May 4, 1999
Decided: May 26, 1999
Before HAMILTON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jon Terence Conrad, Appellant Pro Se. James Spencer Verner, III,
Newberry, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Jon Terence Conrad 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 in part
and rejecting in part the magistrate judge's recommendation, and we
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the
reasoning of the district court.
We note that, in granting summary judgment for Defendants, the
district court relied in part on the defense of official immunity. Immu-
nity is an affirmative defense that must be pled by a defendant or it
is waived. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640-41 (1980).
Because Defendants failed to assert an immunity defense the district
court was precluded from applying it. Nevertheless, we conclude that
summary judgment was appropriately granted in favor of Defendants.
With respect to Defendant Summer, summary judgment was proper
because Conrad's pleadings failed to establish a prima facie case of
unconstitutional prison conditions. See Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d
1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993); Williams v. Griffin , 952 F.2d 820, 824
(4th Cir. 1991). With respect to Defendants Strom and Nichols, sum-
mary judgment was proper because Conrad's claims of retaliation and
conspiracy were so vague and conclusory as to be insufficient. See
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994); Buschi v. Kirven, 775
F.2d 1240, 1248 (4th Cir. 1985).
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
2