Case Name: William M. WRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Officers, S.R.T. (7-3 Shift) Staff; S.R.T. Sergeant Johnson; D. Johnson, C.O. II (Division of Correction), M.H.C.-X, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-09
Citations: 11 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 00-7762
Parties: William M. WRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Officers, S.R.T. (7-3 Shift) Staff; S.R.T. Sergeant Johnson; D. Johnson, C.O. II (Division of Correction), M.H.C.-X, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 102–102

Head Matter:
William M. WRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Officers, S.R.T. (7-3 Shift) Staff; S.R.T. Sergeant Johnson; D. Johnson, C.O. II (Division of Correction), M.H.C.-X, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7762.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2001.
Decided April 9, 2001.
William M. Wray, pro se. Gloria Wilson Shelton, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before WILLIAMS and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William M. Wray 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. Wray v. Conroy, No. CA-00-1348-PJM (D.Md. Nov. 16, 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.