Case Name: Charles WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Deputy Director; David A. Garraghty, Chief Warden; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director; S. Avent, Associate Warden; Belinda Caraballo, Unit Manager; Sergeant Hayhurst, Investigator; R. Bailey, Lab Technician, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-06
Citations: 26 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 01-7244
Parties: Charles WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Deputy Director; David A. Garraghty, Chief Warden; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director; S. Avent, Associate Warden; Belinda Caraballo, Unit Manager; Sergeant Hayhurst, Investigator; R. Bailey, Lab Technician, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 26
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
Charles WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Deputy Director; David A. Garraghty, Chief Warden; Rufus Fleming, Regional Director; S. Avent, Associate Warden; Belinda Caraballo, Unit Manager; Sergeant Hayhurst, Investigator; R. Bailey, Lab Technician, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7244.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2002.
Decided Feb. 6, 2002.
Charles Wright, Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Wright appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wright v. Johnson, No. CA-01-215-3 (E.D.Va. July 16, 2001). 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.