
    Joy KISSAM, Administrator of the Estate of Damon Kissam, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL JAIL; Larry K. Hamilton, Superintendent, Rappahannock Regional Jail; Rappahannock Regional Jail Authority; Charles Jett, Stafford County, Chairman, Rappahannock Regional Jail Authority; Christopher Franzen, Rappahannock Regional Jail Correctional Officer; Certain Unnamed Rappahannock Regional Jail Correctional Officers; Creative Health Resources, Incorporated; Andrew Reese; Peter Ober; Leila Clapperton; Rebecka Griffith; Erin Pittman; Richard Agpaoa, Rappahannock Regional Jail Correctional Officer; Kristopher Albright, Rappahannock Regional Jail Correctional Officer; Deangelis, Rappahannock Regional Jail Corporal; Deborah Shepherd, Rappahannock Regional Jail Corporal; MacKie, Rappahannock Regional Jail Mental Health Provider; Mary Powell, Rappahannock Regional Jail Substance Abuse Counselor, Defendants—Appellees, and Dryden, Physicians Assistant; Robert A. Dryden, Defendants.
    No. 05-1597.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 5, 2006.
    Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
    Steven M. Garver, Deborah E. Mayer, Garver Law Offices, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. John A. Gibney, Jr., Thompson & McMullan, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Damon Kissam died while an inmate in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. Joy Kissam, as administrator of Damon’s estate, sued various defendants, alleging constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 as well as state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and Kissam appeals. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment against Kissam’s claims. See Kissam v. Rappahannock Regional Jail, No. 1:04CV466 (E.D. Va. April 20, 2005). 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  