Case Name: Charles JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack KAVANAUGH; Prison Health Services; Doctor Tesfaye, Director; John Moss, Physician Assistant; Officer Hilton; Edward Tames, Lieutenant; Christopher Ozoukwu, Officer; Thomas Reshke, Nurse; Patrice Dewitt, Pharmacy Nurse; Officer Robinson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-04
Citations: 82 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 03-7283
Parties: Charles JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jack KAVANAUGH; Prison Health Services; Doctor Tesfaye, Director; John Moss, Physician Assistant; Officer Hilton; Edward Tames, Lieutenant; Christopher Ozoukwu, Officer; Thomas Reshke, Nurse; Patrice Dewitt, Pharmacy Nurse; Officer Robinson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
Charles JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jack KAVANAUGH; Prison Health Services; Doctor Tesfaye, Director; John Moss, Physician Assistant; Officer Hilton; Edward Tames, Lieutenant; Christopher Ozoukwu, Officer; Thomas Reshke, Nurse; Patrice Dewitt, Pharmacy Nurse; Officer Robinson, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-7283.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
Charles Jones, Appellant pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Charles Jones 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 Jones v. Kavanaugh, No. CA-02-3409-RDB (D. Md. filed July 22, 2003; entered July 23, 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