UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7538

JOHNNY MULL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SERGEANT KIMBER; DR. HARRIS; SERGEANT PRADO; SERGEANT CONNER; UNIT MANAGER PRATT; JANE DOE; DOCTOR LEANY; SERGEANT BURROUGH; A. V. BARNES; D. BEASLEY; LIEUTENANT SINGLE; WARDEN MCCABE; NURSE DANIEL; DOCTOR DAUGHT; JANE DOE, a/k/a Nurse Tina or Nurse Teresa; NURSE MARGRETT; DARREN JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT HUNTER; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SMITH; SERGEANT MOORE; SERGEANT SMITH; CORREC- TIONAL OFFICER WARREN; SERGEANT WARREN; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GILMAR; COR- RECTIONAL OFFICER ELLIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RANDALL; DOCTOR DOE; JOHN MILLS; WARDEN FRENCH; R. C. LEE; NURSE MILLER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PETTERSON; SERGEANT HARRIS; OFFICER O’NEAL; OFFICER DUDLEY; OFFICER BARBOUR; OF- FICER ROBISCH; OFFICER UNDERWOOD; OFFICER FLEMING; OFFICER MACK; OFFICER LANIER; OFFICER JONES; OFFICER WALSER; OFFICER SCOTT; OFFICER DAVIS; OFFICER BLAZE; NURSE SPEAR; NURSE JOHNNIEE; NURSE TATE; LIEUTENANT THOMAS; GARY W. WILLS, II,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-657-5-BO)

Submitted: February 22, 2000 Decided: April 3, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Mull, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Mull appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his

(West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have re-

viewed the record and the district court’s opinion. See Mull v.

Kimber, No. CA-99-657-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 1999). We affirm the

order on the reasoning of the district court but modify it to pro-

vide that the dismissal of Mull’s complaint is without prejudice.

We deny Mull’s motion for 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 AS MODIFIED

2