UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6850

JOHN WAYNE BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

SERGEANT LINDSEY; SERGEANT COREA; SERGEANT CRENSHAW; L. SMITH; VENABLE, Defendants- Appellees, and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Gilmore; CAPTAIN GOODE; M. HANKS, Lieutenant; B. HICKS, Ser- geant; DAVID GEORGE; E. KIRKON; LIF; SHAW; DUNN; E. MURRAY, Director, D.O.C.; E. MORRIS, Deputy Director D.O.C.; JAMES BRIGGS, Manager- Ombudsman Ser.; W. P. ROGERS, Regional Admin- istrator; E. H. PALMER, Req. Ombuds.; J.

HOLMES, Req. Ombuds.; C. H. ALLEN, Req.

Ombuds.; WARDEN THOMPSON; HESLER, Assistant Warden; CAPTAIN RAINEY; LIEUTENANT HAWKINS; LIEUTENANT PULLEY; LIEUTENANT RIPPER; LIEU- TENANT RICE; T. C. BULLOCK, Hearings Officer; S. WHITTEN, Grieve. Coor.; S. HARRIS, Asst.

Grieve. Coor.; E. PENIC, Asst. Grieve. Coor.; E. TUCK, Asst. Grieve. Coor.; H. LOVELACE, Assist. Grieve. Coor.; T. KALLAM, Assist.

Grieve. Coor.; SERGEANT BOYD; D. CAMPBELL; V. BRUMMEL; THOMPSON; C.O. THOMPSON; SERGEANT CAREY; C.O. BOYD, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-895-AM)

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

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wayne Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Vaughan Christopher Jones, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John Wayne Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Brown v. Lindsey, No. CA-94-895-AM (E.D. Va. May 12, 1998). 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