Randolph E. Hively, Plaintiff--appellant, v. Richard A. Lanham; Ronald Moats; Michael Shirk, Captain;terry Tucker; John Alderton; Jennifer Schell;gary Blickenstat; Herbert Nusbaum;fred Nastri; Karen A. Elliott,defendants-appellees, 56 F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 56 F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 1995) Submitted April 20, 1995. Decided May 31, 1995

Randolph E. Hively, appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

D. Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hively v. Lanham, No. CA-94-2075-AW (D. Md. Mar. 2, 1995). 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