UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7565

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALVIN HOUSTON, Lieutenant; B. FORD, Sergeant; R. GANT, Sergeant; W. PINKETT, Correctional Officer II; D. CHASE, Correctional Officer II; M. STEVENSON, Correctional Officer II, A. SMITH, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-7566

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALVIN HOUSTON, Lieutenant; BERNARD FORD, Ser- geant; DION PINKETT, Correctional Officer II; DARRICK CHASE, Correctional Officer II; MAURICE STEVENSON, Correctional Officer II; REGINALD GANT, Sergeant; EUGENE NUTH, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; J. OWENS, Property Room Officer; OFFICER SMITTY; OTHER UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, et al,

Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1298-AMD, CA-96-896-AMD, CA-96-1388-AMD)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 25, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Ray Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Toni- Jean Lisa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2 PER CURIAM:

Tommy Ray Robinson appeals the district court’s order granting

the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law in his

action alleging violations of

(West Supp. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, as

supported by its reasons as stated from the bench, and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Robinson v. Houston, Nos. CA-96-1298-AMD; CA-

96-896-AMD; CA-96-1388-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2000).

We deny Robinson’s motion for a transcript at government

expense because he has failed to establish grounds for the tran-

script. See

(f) (1994). We also deny Robinson’s

motion for appointment of counsel and 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

3