Lamar Perryman, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department Ofcorrections; Edward C. Morris, Deputy Director, Virginiadepartment of Corrections; Raymond M. Muncy, Warden,virginia State Penitentiary; E.g. Davis, Doctor; Haroldunderwood, Medical Administrator, Virginia Statepenitentiary; Robert W. Fry, Doctor; Blaise C. Plageman,warden; Mrs. Craig, Unit Nurse; Walter Horne, Doctor;levester Thompson, Doctor; D.a. Garraghty, Warden; Franke. Mardavich, Assistant Warden; J.a. Smith, Sargeant;robert Ransom, Program Supervisor; Fred W. Greene, Wardenbrunswick Correctional Center; Richard A. Young, Regionaladministrator; Robert W. Duling, Judge; William M.armhein; Robert N. Johnson; Carol A.n. Breit; John D.parker, Executive Director, Virginia Board of Probation Andparole; Clarence L. Jackson, Chairman, Virginia Board Ofprobation and Parole; Virginia Leonard, Probation Officer;richard L. Williams, United States District Judge; Claudehilton, United States District Judge; David G. Lowe, Unitedstates Magistrate Judge; Michael Huyoung; Robert R. Kelly,warden of the Deerfield Correctional Center; State Ofvirginia; Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia,defendants Appellees, 16 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 1994) Submitted: Jan. 20, 1994. Decided: Feb. 7, 1994

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria; Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.

Lamar Perryman, appellant pro se.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.*  Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Perryman v. Murray, No. CA-92-1266-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 1993). 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.

 *

We deny Perryman's motion for appointment of counsel