UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1350

STEPHEN R. MERRITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

J. MICHAEL MULLEN, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-98-590)

Submitted: August 10, 1999 Decided: August 30, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Howard Ryland, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS, Rich- mond, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark L. Earley, Attorney General of Virginia, Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Ronald C.

Forehand, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William E. Thro, Assistant Attorney General, Rita R. Woltz, Assistant Attorney General, Alison Paige Landry, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Stephen Merritt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Michael Mullen in Merritt’s 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. We review the order granting summary judgment de novo. See Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994). A moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Merritt v. Mullen, No. CA-98- (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 1999). 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