UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

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