Case Name: James BALDWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Prison Health Service, Incorporated, Gerald Boyle, President and CEO; Compass Group, USA, Incorporated; Doctor Gore, Chief Physician, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-07
Citations: 229 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 07-6210
Parties: James BALDWIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Prison Health Service, Incorporated, Gerald Boyle, President and CEO; Compass Group, USA, Incorporated; Doctor Gore, Chief Physician, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
James BALDWIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; Prison Health Service, Incorporated, Gerald Boyle, President and CEO; Compass Group, USA, Incorporated; Doctor Gore, Chief Physician, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-6210.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2007.
Decided: June 7, 2007.
James Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Rawls & McNelis, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Paul Graham Beers, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, Roanoke, Virginia; Peter M. Coppinger, Gregory D. Cote, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Baldwin 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. Baldwin v. Johnson, No. 2:06-cv-00115-JBF (E.D.Va. Jan. 11, 2007). 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.