
    William E. ALTON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor MATHIS, M.D.; Maryam Messaforth, P.A.; Kevin Johnson, P.A.; Nurse Carol, R.N.; CMS Medical Contractor; Doctor Bahanna, M.D.; Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Eastern Correctional Institution; Katherine Green, Warden; Ronald Dxyden, Assistant Warden; Victoria Burkhard; Robert Hanke, Security Chief; John A. Rowley, Commissioner of Correctional Institution; James A. Smith, Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center, Warden; Michael Stouffer; James Murphy, Assistant; Terrance Taylor, Sergeant; Charles Gaither, C.O.2; Gregory Ward, E.C.I. Sergeant; J. Tyler, Case Management Specialist; Supervisor Parkinson; M Fitchett; Specialist Endlinch; Lieutenant Drury, ECI-Intell; Ida Y. Ositelu, Dietary Supervisor; Connie Shaft, C.D.R.M.R.D.; B. Whittington, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Richo; Thornton, C.D.O.; Tillamn-Haywood, C.D.O.; K. Huyknh, C.D.O.; Hannah, C.O.S; Walske, C.O.S.; Kessler, C.O.2; G.R. Tyler, C.O.2; Johnson, C.O.2; Major Maycock; Captain King; Lieutenant Barnes; Judith Hathway, P.A., in their Individual and Official Capacities; Gunter, C.O.2; Bobby Shearin, Deputy Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-6778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 22, 2008.
    Decided: July 28, 2008.
    William E. Alton, III, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, Kramon & Graham, Baltimore, Maryland; Rex Schultz Gordon, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

William E. Alton, III, 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. Alton v. Mathis, No. 8:07-cv-01499-AW (D.Md. Apr. 21, 2008). 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.  