UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6450

RICKY A. PIERCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT KING; SERGEANT BOYD; SERGEANT CHEEKS; SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT BURROUGHS; OFFICER CANNIE; OFFICER SMITH, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; CASE- WORKER JEFFERIES, Defendants - Appellees,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor.

No. 96-7061

RICKY A. PIERCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT KING; SERGEANT BOYD; SERGEANT CHEEKS; SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT BURROUGHS; OFFICER CANNIE; OFFICER SMITH, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; CASE- WORKER JEFFERIES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-523-5-BO)

Argued: October 3, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and MAGILL, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Neal Lawrence Walters, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNI- VERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia; Seth Michael Galanter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. William Dennis Worley, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald Moore Marquette, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUS- TICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

Ricky A. Pierce, a disabled inmate at the Tillery Correctional

Center in North Carolina, appeals from a decision of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, officials

employed by the North Carolina Department of Corrections. Pierce alleges a violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans

with Disabilities Act,

. For the reasons

stated in Amos v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correc- tional Services, No. 96-7091,

(Sept. 22, 1997), we

affirm.

AFFIRMED

3