Case Name: Frankie L. McCOY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marta PRADO; Doctor Wayne; Dorthy Tribble, Administrative Nurse, individually and official capacity; Louise Steward, Assistant Warden; James Pegeuess, Chief of Security; Marlene Shelby, Defendants-Appellees, and L. Chaney, Captain; R. Martin, Lieutenant; Sergeant Cowan; D. Ingram, Sergeant, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-19
Citations: 5 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 00-7450
Parties: Frankie L. McCOY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marta PRADO; Doctor Wayne; Dorthy Tribble, Administrative Nurse, individually and official capacity; Louise Steward, Assistant Warden; James Pegeuess, Chief of Security; Marlene Shelby, Defendants-Appellees, and L. Chaney, Captain; R. Martin, Lieutenant; Sergeant Cowan; D. Ingram, Sergeant, Defendants.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
Frankie L. McCOY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marta PRADO; Doctor Wayne; Dorthy Tribble, Administrative Nurse, individually and official capacity; Louise Steward, Assistant Warden; James Pegeuess, Chief of Security; Marlene Shelby, Defendants-Appellees, and L. Chaney, Captain; R. Martin, Lieutenant; Sergeant Cowan; D. Ingram, Sergeant, Defendants.
No. 00-7450.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.
Decided March 19, 2001.
Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., pro se. Donald Joseph Crawford, Godard, West & Adel man, P.C., Rockville, MD; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frankie McCoy appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McCoy v. Prado, No. CA-99-1464-L (D.Md. Sept. 26, 2000). 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.