Case Name: Gregory MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden, E.C.I.; Deborah Puller, Psychologist, E.C.I.; Robert D. Ritchey, Chief, E.C.I.; Razaak Eniola, Medical Director, E.C.I.; Keith Muir, H.T., Officer, Co II, E.C.I.; Doctor Linn, E.C.I.; Kevin Johnson, Nurse, E.C.I.; Mr. Jim, L.P.N., Nurse, Patuxent; Amy Hyman, Psychologist, Patuxent; Raymond Wilson, Psychologist, Patuxent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-05
Citations: 22 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 01-7047
Parties: Gregory MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden, E.C.I.; Deborah Puller, Psychologist, E.C.I.; Robert D. Ritchey, Chief, E.C.I.; Razaak Eniola, Medical Director, E.C.I.; Keith Muir, H.T., Officer, Co II, E.C.I.; Doctor Linn, E.C.I.; Kevin Johnson, Nurse, E.C.I.; Mr. Jim, L.P.N., Nurse, Patuxent; Amy Hyman, Psychologist, Patuxent; Raymond Wilson, Psychologist, Patuxent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 224–224

Head Matter:
Gregory MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert KUPEC, Warden, E.C.I.; Deborah Puller, Psychologist, E.C.I.; Robert D. Ritchey, Chief, E.C.I.; Razaak Eniola, Medical Director, E.C.I.; Keith Muir, H.T., Officer, Co II, E.C.I.; Doctor Linn, E.C.I.; Kevin Johnson, Nurse, E.C.I.; Mr. Jim, L.P.N., Nurse, Patuxent; Amy Hyman, Psychologist, Patuxent; Raymond Wilson, Psychologist, Patuxent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 29, 2001.
Decided Dec. 5, 2001.
Gregory Marshall, pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Assistant Attorney General; Philip Melton Andrews, Michael Joseph Lentz, Kramon & Graham, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Marshall appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Marshall v. Kupec, No. CA-00-3322-AW (D. Md. June 6 & 12, 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.