Case Name: Elmer Eugene HEATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Doctor Krantz; Thomas Beasley; Don Hutto; David Myers, CCA President; Prison Realty Trust, Incorporated; J. Mike Quilan, Vice-Chairman; Pamlico Private Prison; Assistant Warden Brandon; Assistant Warden Holiday; West Wing Superintendent Edwards; Chief of Security Gomez; Coley Smith, Officer; Gary Simpson, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-08-17
Citations: 16 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 01-6827
Parties: Elmer Eugene HEATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Doctor Krantz; Thomas Beasley; Don Hutto; David Myers, CCA President; Prison Realty Trust, Incorporated; J. Mike Quilan, Vice-Chairman; Pamlico Private Prison; Assistant Warden Brandon; Assistant Warden Holiday; West Wing Superintendent Edwards; Chief of Security Gomez; Coley Smith, Officer; Gary Simpson, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 16
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
Elmer Eugene HEATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Doctor Krantz; Thomas Beasley; Don Hutto; David Myers, CCA President; Prison Realty Trust, Incorporated; J. Mike Quilan, Vice-Chairman; Pamlico Private Prison; Assistant Warden Brandon; Assistant Warden Holiday; West Wing Superintendent Edwards; Chief of Security Gomez; Coley Smith, Officer; Gary Simpson, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6827.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2001.
Decided Aug. 17, 2001.
Elmer Eugene Heath, pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elmer Eugene Heath appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) 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. Heath v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. CA-01-93-5-F(3) (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 26, 2001; entered Apr. 27, 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.