
    Thomas K. HOGGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harvard STEPHENS, Dr., Chief Physician, Office of Health Services, sued individually and in official capacity; Manickavasager, Dr., Institutional Physician, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; Alvin Harris, Dr., Chief Institutional Physician (Past), Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; Linda Robb, Phlebotomist (Lab Technician), Powhatan Medical Unit (Receiving), sued individually and in official capacity; Fred Schillings, Director of Prison Health Services, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Keith Davis, Warden, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; Benita Badgette, Healthcare Adm., Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; Hoffman, Dr., Institutional Physician, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; Amonette, Dr., Chief Institutional Physician, Powhatan Receiving Unit, sued individually and in official capacity; Mary Johnson, Registered Nurse, Deerfield Correctional Center, sued individually and in official capacity; Fred Schilling, Defendants.
    No. 11-7340.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 29, 2012.
    Decided: March 13, 2012.
    Thomas K. Hogge, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Rosalie Fessier, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Kevin Hogge appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hogge v. Stephens, No. 3:09-cv-00582-JRS, 2010 WL 3834849 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2010); 2011 WL 2161100 (June 1), 2011 WL 4352268 (Sept. 6 & 16, 2011). 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.  