UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7247

DONALD SYLVESTER GROSS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Correc- tions; SEWALL SMITH, Warden; EUGENE NUTH, War- den; JOSEPH WILSON, Assistant Warden; CAPTAIN LONG; LIEUTENANT ADAMS; S. PRESBURY, Lieuten- ant; LENA KENT, Sargeant; DONALD THOMAS, Sargeant; R. LAWSON, Sargeant; WILLIAM LEWIS, Sargeant; SARGEANT RUSSELL; S. HARLEE, Sar- geant; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SNELLING; J. ALSTON, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BRIGHT; R. SANDERS, Correctional Officer; D. NORRIS, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OTIS; MARJORIE WILLIAMS, Sargeant, Administrative Remedy Coordinator; RICHARD DUNCAN, Headquarters Administrative Remedy Coordinator; MCAC MAIL STAFF PERSONNEL; JANEL LEE, Administrative Remedy Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 96-3758-S)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Sylvester Gross, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane- Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his

(1994) complaint, denying his motion to compel discovery, and denying his motions for appointment of coun-

sel. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially

on the reasoning of the district court. Gross v. Lanham, No. CA-96- 3758-S (D. Md. Aug. 22, 1997). Further, we find that the district

court properly exercised its discretion to deny Appellant's motions

to compel discovery and for appointment of counsel. 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