UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8558

MICHAEL WAYNE MONTGOMERY, a/k/a Shaka Zulu X, a/k/a Thomas Edward Howard, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LAURA BESSINGER, Warden/Head Administrator, Kirkland Correctional Institute; CAPTAIN JACKSON, Captain over other Security Staff at Kirkland Correctional Institute; NURSE STAN- LEY, Nurse, Maximum Security Unit, Kirkland Correctional Institute; LIEUTENANT DAVIS, Second Shift Supervisor at Maximum Security Unit of Kirkland Correctional Institute; DOCTOR NEAL, Physician, Kirkland Correctional Institute; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; B. LYMORE, Sergeant, Kirkland Correctional Institute; B.

RUTHERFORD, Correctional Officer, Kirkland Correctional Institute, Maximum Security Unit; DWAYNE WALKER, Correctional Officer, Kirkland Correctional Institute, Maximum Security Unit; VAUGHN JACKSON, Captain; LIEUTENANT MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-896-6-3AK, CA-93-909-6-3AK, CA-93-2158-6-3AK, CA-93- 2159-6-3AK, CA-94-247-6-3AK) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Elizabeth Krawcheck Rodgers, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 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. Montgomery v. Bessinger, Nos. CA-93-896-6-3AK; CA-93-909-6-3AK; CA-93-2158-6-3AK; CA-2159-6-3AK; CA-94-247-6-3AK (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 1995). 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