UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2409

BARTON J. ADAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Board of Osteopathy; ROBERT FOSTER, individually and in his capacity as President/ Member of the Board of Osteopathy; RODENY FINK, D.O., individually and in his capacity as Vice President/Member of the Board of Osteopathy; JOSEPH E. SCHREIBER, D.O., indi- vidually in his capacity as a Secretary/Member of the Board of Osteopathy; KAY CHERENKO, in- dividually and in her capacity as a member of the Board of Osteopathy; BEA HARVEY, individ- ually and in his capacity as a President/ Member of the Board of Osteopathy; PAUL KLEMAN, individually and in his capacity as a President/Member of the Board of Osteopathy,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DOES 1-100, individuals; DOE ENTITIES 1-100,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-200-5) Submitted: January 5, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barton J. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. James J.A. Mulhall, SHUMAN, ANNAND, BAILEY, WYANT & EARLES, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

complaint with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Adams v.

State of West Virginia, No. CA-96-200-5 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 1998).

Accordingly, we deny Appellees’ motions to supplement the record

and to strike Appellant’s reply brief as moot. We also deny Appel-

lant’s request for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3