
    Elton Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and United States of America, Intervenor, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, in his individual and official capacity; Gene M. Johnson; H.R. Powell, Warden, Southampton Correctional Center; Rupus Fleming, in his individual and official capacity as the Regional Director; W.W. Pixley, Lieutenant of Southampton Correctional Center; J. Barnes, Lieutenant at Southampton Correctional Center; R.A. Young, Regional Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; L.W. Jarvis, Warden at Bland Correctional Center; C.A. Hollar, Assistant Warden of Programs at Bland Correctional Center; K.A. Polinsky, Assistant Warden of Programs at Bland Correctional Center; F.E. Lockhart, Treatment Program Supervisor at Bland Correctional Center; H.J. Hickman, Captain at Bland Correctional Center; S.K. YOUNG, WRSP; A.P. Harvey, WRSP; Sergeant Wilkins, WRSP; H.O. Yates, WRSP; H.O. Yates, Major, WRSP; R. Snider, Lieutenant; Sergeant Collins, WRSP; Collen, Correctional Officer, WRSP; Hampton, Sergeant, WRSP; Officer McKinney, WRSP; J. Minton, WRSP; Kiser, Correctional Officer, WRSP; John Doe, Correctional Officer, WRSP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-6740.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 23, 2011.
    Decided: March 21, 2011.
    Elton Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elton Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Angelone, No. 7:01-cv-00274-JCT (W.D.Va. filed Mar. 23, 2006 & entered Mar. 24, 2006). 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.  