UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6187

KHALYL BEN ISRAEL, a/k/a Terence C. Domio,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID K. SMITH; JAMES HARTMAN, Food Service Supervisor; RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virgin- ia Department of Corrections; BOBBY S. SOLES; LARRY D. HUFFMAN; J. I. AUSTIN, Chaplain; GRAHAM GEORGE MCDONNOUGH, #161125,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-6188

MALIK BEN ISRAEL, a/k/a William E. Wheless,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID K. SMITH; JAMES HARTMAN; RONALD ANGELONE; J. I. AUSTIN; LARRY D. HUFFMAN; BOBBY S. SOLES,

Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-6189

GRAHAM GEORGE MCDONNOUGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID K. SMITH; JAMES HARTMAN; BOBBY SOLES; J. I. AUSTIN; LARRY D. HUFFMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-6250

JESSE C. SMITH, a/k/a Yishay Ben Israel,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE; LARRY HUFFMAN; DAVID SMITH; BOBBY SOLES; JAMES HARTMAN; J. I. AUSTIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-94-394-R, CA-94-396-R, CA-94-443-R, CA-94-397-R)

Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998

2 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khalyl Ben Israel, Malik Ben Israel, Graham George McDonnough, Jesse C. Smith, Appellants Pro Se. Graham George McDonnough, Ap- pellee; Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Khalyl Ben Israel, Malik Ben Israel, Graham George McDonnough,

and Jesse C. Smith appeal the district court’s order entering judg-

ment for Defendants following a bench trial in this

(West Supp. 1998) action alleging a denial of Appellants’

First Amendment rights. We have reviewed the records and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. 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. Appellant

McDonnough’s motion for an injunction is denied.

AFFIRMED

3