Case Name: Feliberto DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy LEE; Pat Bailey; Doctor Murphy; The Utilization Review Board; Boyd Bennett, Defendants-Appellees; Feliberto DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pat Bailey, Defendant-Appellee, and Randy Lee; Doctor Murphy; The Utilization Review Board; Boyd Bennett, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-11
Citations: 104 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: Nos. 03-7446, 04-6246
Parties: Feliberto DIAZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Randy LEE; Pat Bailey; Doctor Murphy; The Utilization Review Board; Boyd Bennett, Defendants—Appellees. Feliberto DIAZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Pat Bailey, Defendant—Appellee, and Randy Lee; Doctor Murphy; The Utilization Review Board; Boyd Bennett, Defendants.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
Feliberto DIAZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Randy LEE; Pat Bailey; Doctor Murphy; The Utilization Review Board; Boyd Bennett, Defendants—Appellees. Feliberto DIAZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Pat Bailey, Defendant—Appellee, and Randy Lee; Doctor Murphy; The Utilization Review Board; Boyd Bennett, Defendants.
Nos. 03-7446, 04-6246.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2004.
Decided Aug. 11, 2004.
Feliberto Diaz, Appellant pro se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, Renee Billings Crawford, Crawford Law Office, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Feliberto Diaz 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Diaz v. Lee, CA-01-732-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). 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
We note that because the Utilization Review Board ("URB") is not a "person" under § 1983, it was not necessary for the district court to address the merits of Diaz's claims against it. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).