
    Jose LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden; Richard Phillips; D. Greer, a/k/a Officer D. Greer, a/k/a Greek; Sergeant Burtin N; Lieutenant Raynolds, a/k/a Lieutenant Reynolds; Correctional Officer King; Correctional Officer Buchanan; Major Yates; Counselor Yeary; Correctional Officer Bellamy; Sergeant Collins; Michael Fleming, Correctional Officer, a/k/a Correctional Officer Flemirg; Tommy Jackson, Correctional Officer, a/k/a Correctional Officer Jackson; Paul Ohai, MD, a/k/a Doctor Ohai; Tammy Thomas, Nurse, a/k/a R.N. Ms. Thomas; Donnie Lester, Lieutenant, a/k/a Lieutenant Lester; Sergeant Bentley; Sergeant Anderson; F. Willis, Investigator; Teresa L. Johnson, a/k/a Medical Director T. Johnson; Mr. Philips, Assistant Warden of Programs; Ms. Baker, Counselor; Kenneth Slater, MD, a/k/a Doctor Slater; Correctional Officer Bliley; Brian Kiser, a/k/a Correctional Officer Kiser; R.A. Young, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees, and Sherry Stafford, Nurse; Vicky Harper, Nurse, a/k/a Nurse Harper; Ms. McCurry, R.N.; Ms. Berry, R.N.; Doctor Smith; Medical Department; Grievance Department; Institutional Administrators, Wallens Ridge State Prison; Ms. Mullins, R.N., Defendants.
    No. 05-6747.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.
    Decided Oct. 20, 2005.
    Jose Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III, John David McChesney, Rawls & Mcnelis, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Lopez 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lopez v. Young, No. CA-01-876 (W-D.Va. filed Mar. 30, 2005; entered Mar. 31, 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  