Case Name: Julius LAWRENCE-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harrell WATTS; Harley G. Lappin; Margaret C. Hambrick; J.E. Gunja; Gary I. Reynolds; Robert Cendo; Thao Nguyen; Joseph Brooks; B. Katta; A. Zayas; J. Fajardo; C. Mendoza; Y. Aponte-Renfro; A. Blankenship; Prakash Karanvir, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-30
Citations: 65 F. App'x 472
Docket Number: No. 03-6200
Parties: Julius LAWRENCE-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harrell WATTS; Harley G. Lappin; Margaret C. Hambrick; J.E. Gunja; Gary I. Reynolds; Robert Cendo; Thao Nguyen; Joseph Brooks; B. Katta; A. Zayas; J. Fajardo; C. Mendoza; Y. Aponte-Renfro; A. Blankenship; Prakash Karanvir, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 472–472

Head Matter:
Julius LAWRENCE-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harrell WATTS; Harley G. Lappin; Margaret C. Hambrick; J.E. Gunja; Gary I. Reynolds; Robert Cendo; Thao Nguyen; Joseph Brooks; B. Katta; A. Zayas; J. Fajardo; C. Mendoza; Y. Aponte-Renfro; A. Blankenship; Prakash Karanvir, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6200.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 20, 2003.
Decided May 30, 2003.
Julius Lawrence-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Julius Lawrence-Bey appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lawrence-Bey v. Watts, No. CA-02-1753-AM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 6, 2003, and entered Jan. 7, 2003). 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.