UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1532

SUE ELLEN SELLARS HAMMONDS, a resident of New Hanover County,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH MCQUEEN, Sheriff of New Hanover County Sheriff's Department,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-226-7-F)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sue Ellen Sellars Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III, Coleman M. Cowan, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

(1994) complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Appellant alleged that Sheriff Joseph McQueen violated

her civil rights while she was visiting the Sheriff's Department.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Hammonds v. McQueen, No. CA-96-226-7-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 1997). Although McQueen was named as a defen-

dant, Appellant did not allege that McQueen was personally involved

in the claimed assault or that he had knowledge of conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury.

Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that McQueen was delib-

erately indifferent to or tacitly authorized the alleged offensive practices. See Shaw v. Stroud,

(4th Cir. 1994). Appellant has also failed to allege proof of a custom or policy

favoring the commission of the alleged constitutional violations necessary to maintain an action against McQueen in his official

capacity. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs.,

(1978). Accordingly, we affirm. 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

2