Filed: April 17, 1996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7522 (CA-93-1424-AM)

Lorenzo A. Scorpio, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Julia Foster-Woodson, etc., et al, Defendants - Appellees.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed April 4, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is corrected to read "Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge." For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Bert M. Montague Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7522

LORENZO A. SCORPIO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JULIA FOSTER-WOODSON, Institutional Case Manager, Nottoway Penitentiary; CLARENCE L.

JACKSON, Chairman of the Board, Virginia Board of Parole; EDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Depart- ment of Corrections of Virginia; YVETTE KING, Substance Abuse Counselor; GEORGE LACKS, Cor- rectional Officer; E. DAVIS, Rec. Dept. Super- visor; R. BUTLER, Rec. Dept. Supervisor; S. V. JONES, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-93-1424-AM) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo A. Scorpio, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re- lief on his motion to alter or amend the judgment denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Scorpio v. Foster-Woodson, No. CA-93-1424-AM (E.D. Va. Aug.

18, 1995). To the extent that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (West 1994), might apply to Appellant's action, Appellees are entitled to immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (public officials are free from liability for monetary damages if they can plead and prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known). 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