Case Name: George BRIDGES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary BASS, Regional Administrator, VA. D.O.C.; Henry Ponton, Warden; D. Saunders, Institutional Hearing Officer; M.T. Love, B Building Lt. Building Supervisor; P.R. Brown, B Building Sgt. Building Sgt., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-21
Citations: 620 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 15-6612
Parties: George BRIDGES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary BASS, Regional Administrator, VA. D.O.C.; Henry Ponton, Warden; D. Saunders, Institutional Hearing Officer; M.T. Love, B Building Lt. Building Supervisor; P.R. Brown, B Building Sgt. Building Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
George BRIDGES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary BASS, Regional Administrator, VA. D.O.C.; Henry Ponton, Warden; D. Saunders, Institutional Hearing Officer; M.T. Love, B Building Lt. Building Supervisor; P.R. Brown, B Building Sgt. Building Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6612.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2015.
George Bridges, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Bridges, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We grant Bridges' motions to amend to the extent they seek to amend his informal opening brief and deny his June 19, 2015 motion to the extent it seeks to amend his original complaint. We have reviewed the record and ñnd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bridges v. Bass, No. 2:12-cv-00538-MSD-DEM (E.D.Va. Mar. 24, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.