
    Ira Wayne MADISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Keith William DeBlasio; Donald Wells; S. Batts; D. Wilson; D. McBride; John Harris; Eric Hobbs; Nash; Donald Wayne Peery; Kevin A. Eggleston; Steven C. Whisenant; Walter Epps; Wesley Hammond; Clarence W. Terry; Thomas Alexander; Derrick K. Jones, Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Ron Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; C.D. Larson, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center; Carol F. Wallace, Associate Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional Center; Jerry R. Townsend, Major, Lunenburg Correctional Center; sued in their individual and official capacities; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Kareem Harris, Movant. Ira Wayne Madison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; David A. Gar-raghty, Warden, G.R.C.C.; G.R.C.C. Staff and Security, Defendants-Appel-lees. Kareem Harris, Movant.
    Nos. 00-7667, 00-7668.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 29, 2001.
    Decided June 18, 2001.
    
      Ira Wayne Madison, pro se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellees.
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his civil action challenging Division Operating Procedure 864, a prison grooming policy requiring that male inmates’ hair not be more than one inch in thickness/depth and prohibiting beards. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, along with Madison’s allegations of error, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. DeBlasio v. Johnson, and Madison v. Angelone, 128 F.Supp.2d 315 (E.D.Va. 2000). 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.  