Case Name: Lionell Elijah EPHRAIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Gene Johnson, Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Cei Louis, Chairman of the Central Classification Board (CCB), in his individual and official capacities; Duncan Mills, Manager of the Central Classification Board (CCB), in his individual and official capacities; C.D. Larsen, Warden of Lunenburg Correctional Center, in his individual and official capacities; David L. Graham, Assistant Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional center, in his individual and official capacities; D. Spencer, Human Rights Advocate, Lunenburg Correctional Center, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-27
Citations: 68 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: No. 03-6411
Parties: Lionell Elijah EPHRAIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Gene Johnson, Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director of the Department of Corrections, in his indi vidual and official capacities; Cei Louis, Chairman of the Central Classification Board (CCB), in his individual and official capacities; Duncan Mills, Manager of the Central Classification Board (CCB), in his individual and official capacities; C.D. Larsen, Warden of Lunenburg Correctional Center, in his individual and official capacities; David L. Graham, Assistant Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional center, in his individual and official capacities; D. Spencer, Human Rights Advocate, Lunenburg Correctional Center, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Lionell Elijah EPHRAIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; Gene Johnson, Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director of the Department of Corrections, in his indi vidual and official capacities; Cei Louis, Chairman of the Central Classification Board (CCB), in his individual and official capacities; Duncan Mills, Manager of the Central Classification Board (CCB), in his individual and official capacities; C.D. Larsen, Warden of Lunenburg Correctional Center, in his individual and official capacities; David L. Graham, Assistant Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional center, in his individual and official capacities; D. Spencer, Human Rights Advocate, Lunenburg Correctional Center, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), Defendant.
No. 03-6411.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided June 27, 2003.
Lionell Elijah Ephraim, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lionell Elijah Ephraim 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Ephraim v. Angelone, No. CA-01-610-2 (E.D.Va. filed Mar. 1, 2003; entered Mar. 3, 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.
Because we have received and reviewed the district court record on appeal, we deny Ephraim's motion for transmittal of the record as unnecessary.