UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6718

ANTHONY T. HAYWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD G. MURRAY; P. A. TERRANGI, Warden; DOC- TOR HENCEROTH; H. D. UNDERWOOD, R.N.; C. HAR- VIN; F. WILSON; MICHAEL PFEIFFER; ROSCOE RAM- SEY; J. WEBSTER; DOCTOR ONG; PIERRE D. LORD; K. HAMLIN, R.N.; E. SHAW, L.P.N.; A. EVANS, L.P.N.; B. EASTER, L.P.N.; E. POWELL, Captain; DOCTOR MARSHALL; CO NEWSOME; CLARENCE BURGESS, Lieutenant; J. A. SMITH, R.A.; R. B. KESSLER, M.A., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1239-AM) Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony T. Hayward, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, ADLER, ROSEN & PETERS, P.C., Virginia Beach, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hayward v. Murray, No. CA-94-1239-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1995). We deny Appellant's motions for oral argument and for the appointment of counsel because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED