Case Name: Roger WINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor SARAIYA, Defendant-Appellee, and Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-31
Citations: 146 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 05-7147
Parties: Roger WINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor SARAIYA, Defendant—Appellee, and Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Roger WINGFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor SARAIYA, Defendant—Appellee, and Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Defendant.
No. 05-7147.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 31, 2005.
Roger Wingfield, Appellant Pro Se. John David McChesney, Rawls & McNelis, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roger Wingfield appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wingfield v. Saraiya, No. CA-03-881-1-CMH (E.D. Va. filed June 24, 2005 & entered June 28, 2005). 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