UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7003

JAMES C. MCNEILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE E. CURRIE; MICHAEL MUNNS; RICHARD T. JONES; TONIA RODGERS; TONY C. JONES; JAMES A. REID; SHANTICIA HAWKINS; GEORGE TURNER; BETSY BRANCH; MARVIN THOMAS; THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT; VIRGINIA LANCASTER; J. J. HAYNES; LEIGH BRANCH; BULLOCK; HATTIE PIMPONG; EVELINE FAULK; EARL V. ECHARD; JOSEPH LIGHTSEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-9-5-H)

Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: November 16, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. McNeill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James C. McNeill appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his

(2000) complaint. The

district court dismissed as frivolous McNeill’s claims concerning

the lack of due process in disciplinary hearings and dismissed

without prejudice McNeill’s claims concerning the denial of out-of-

cell exercise time.* We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See McNeill v. Currie, No. CA-04-9-5-H

(E.D.N.C. May 5, 2004). 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

* Because McNeill challenges only the district court’s decision concerning the denial of due process at the disciplinary hearings, our review is limited to that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

- 2 -