Filed: December 26, 1996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6053

(CA-94-628-6BD)

Eugene A. Stauch, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

South Carolina Department of Corrections,

etc., et al,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed December 9, 1996, as

follows:

On page 2, section 2 -- counsel for Appellees is corrected to

read "Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & SENN, Charleston, South Carolina,

for Appellees Department of Corrections, et al; Andrew F.

Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee Aycock."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EUGENE A. STAUCH, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, through the following

employees thereof; P. DOUGLAS

TAYLOR, Warden, Lieber

Correctional Institution, in his

official and personal capacity;

No. 96-6053

WILLIE WELDON, Unit Manager,

Edisto Dorm (L.C.I.), in his official

and personal capacity; ARTHUR

JORDAN, Inmate Relations

Coordinator, Edisto Dorm (L.C.I.),

in his official and personal capacity;

JOHN AYCOCK, Doctor, Regional

Medical Director (L.C.I.), in his

official and personal capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-94-628-6BD)

Submitted: November 21, 1996

Decided: December 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Orin G. Briggs, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Senn,

STUCKEY & SENN, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees Department of Corrections, et al; Andrew F. Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE,

DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee 

Aycock.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Stauch appeals from the district court's order granting

summary judgment to the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (1994)

action in which he claimed that the Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs.

This court reviews the district court's granting of summary judgment de novo. Farwell v. Un, 902 F.2d 282, 287 (4th Cir. 1990).

Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a mattter

of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We construe all facts and draw reasonable inferences in the favor of the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). With this standard in mind, we

find that the district court properly awarded summary judgment to the

Defendants on all of Stauch's claims. First, Stauch's claims that he

was denied adequate medical care are belied by his medical records

which show that Stauch received more than adequate medical attention for his many ailments. To the extent that Stauch disagreed with

the course of treatment prescribed by prison medical personnel, such

 2
claims are not actionable under § 1983. Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d

318 (4th Cir. 1975).

Stauch also claimed that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by housing him

with a smoking roommate. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25

(1993) (holding that exposure of an inmate to excessive environmental tobacco smoke may constitute violation of Eighth Amendment

rights). Our review of the record reveals that, even if Stauch could

make out a claim under Helling, the district court properly found that

the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (holding that government officials

performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have

known).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor

of the Defendants. 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

 3