Case Name: Ronald WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of VIRGINIA, and all other employees of the state and its agents; Wallens Ridge State Prison, Medical Department (in whole); B. COPE, Nurse; Sergeant Elom; Nurse Horsley; C. Wilson, Doctor; Sergeant Farrish; S. Young, Warden; A. Harvey, Assistant Warden; Jane Doe, # 2, Nurse; Jane Doe, # 3, Nurse; Doctor Howard; Nurse Johnson; John Doe, # 4, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-08
Citations: 47 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 02-6785
Parties: Ronald WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of VIRGINIA, and all other employees of the state and its agents; Wallens Ridge State Prison, Medical Department (in whole); B. COPE, Nurse; Sergeant Elom; Nurse Horsley; C. Wilson, Doctor; Sergeant Farrish; S. Young, Warden; A. Harvey, Assistant Warden; Jane Doe, # 2, Nurse; Jane Doe, # 3, Nurse; Doctor Howard; Nurse Johnson; John Doe, # 4, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 47
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Ronald WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of VIRGINIA, and all other employees of the state and its agents; Wallens Ridge State Prison, Medical Department (in whole); B. COPE, Nurse; Sergeant Elom; Nurse Horsley; C. Wilson, Doctor; Sergeant Farrish; S. Young, Warden; A. Harvey, Assistant Warden; Jane Doe, # 2, Nurse; Jane Doe, # 3, Nurse; Doctor Howard; Nurse Johnson; John Doe, # 4, Doctor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6785.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2002.
Decided Oct. 8, 2002.
Ronald Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Marie Kofron, Wright, Robinson, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, Virginia; Banci Enga Tewolde, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Wilson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wilson v. Virginia, No. CA-00-966-7 (W.D.Va. May 6, 2002). We deny Wilson's motion for appointment of counsel as this matter involves no complex issues or exceptional circumstances. 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.