Case Name: Michael Ray HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel T. MAHON, Warden; Captain Davis, C.C.A.; D.A. Braxton, Warden, Rosp; Paul Williams; Virginia Department of Corrections; R. Fleming, Major; J.K. Vaughn; R.T. Coker; V. Smith, Doctor; Rufus Fleming; Doctor King; David A. Smith, Assistant Warden, H.C.C.; J. Redd, Segregation Counselor, H.C.C., Defendants-Appellees, and Correctional Officer Butler; V.L. Evans; William Rodgers, Regional Administrator, Central Region, VDOC; L. Dotson, Warden, L.C.C.; S. Fleenor, Grievance Coordinator at Rosp, VDOC; John Doe, I, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of disciplinary hearings; John Doe, II, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of Ombudsman for D.O.C.; John Doe, III, person named unknown at C.C.A., employee head of medical staff; John Doe, IV, person unknown at VDOC, Director of Medical Services and Medical Policy of D.O.C., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-04
Citations: 60 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 02-7705
Parties: Michael Ray HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel T. MAHON, Warden; Captain Davis, C.C.A.; D.A. Braxton, Warden, Rosp; Paul Williams; Virginia Department of Corrections; R. Fleming, Major; J.K. Vaughn; R.T. Coker; V. Smith, Doctor; Rufus Fleming; Doctor King; David A. Smith, Assistant Warden, H.C.C.; J. Redd, Segregation Counselor, H.C.C., Defendants-Appellees, and Correctional Officer Butler; V.L. Evans; William Rodgers, Regional Administrator, Central Region, VDOC; L. Dotson, Warden, L.C.C.; S. Fleenor, Grievance Coordinator at Rosp, VDOC; John Doe, I, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of disciplinary hearings; John Doe, II, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of Ombudsman for D.O.C.; John Doe, III, person named unknown at C.C.A., employee head of medical staff; John Doe, IV, person unknown at VDOC, Director of Medical Services and Medical Policy of D.O.C., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
Michael Ray HARVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel T. MAHON, Warden; Captain Davis, C.C.A.; D.A. Braxton, Warden, Rosp; Paul Williams; Virginia Department of Corrections; R. Fleming, Major; J.K. Vaughn; R.T. Coker; V. Smith, Doctor; Rufus Fleming; Doctor King; David A. Smith, Assistant Warden, H.C.C.; J. Redd, Segregation Counselor, H.C.C., Defendants-Appellees, and Correctional Officer Butler; V.L. Evans; William Rodgers, Regional Administrator, Central Region, VDOC; L. Dotson, Warden, L.C.C.; S. Fleenor, Grievance Coordinator at Rosp, VDOC; John Doe, I, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of disciplinary hearings; John Doe, II, person named unknown at C.C.A., VDOC, employee at C.C.A. charges with duty of Ombudsman for D.O.C.; John Doe, III, person named unknown at C.C.A., employee head of medical staff; John Doe, IV, person unknown at VDOC, Director of Medical Services and Medical Policy of D.O.C., Defendants.
No. 02-7705.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2003.
Decided April 4, 2003.
Michael Ray Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., Guynn & Memmer, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Ray Harvey appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harvey v. Mahon, No. CA-02-829-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 11, 2002). 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.