Filed: June 5, 2003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Nos. 03-1047(L) (CA-02-1106-A) Darryl Allmond, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Deputy Cozza, et al., Defendants - Appellees. CORRECTED ORDER The court corrects its order issued June 3, 2003, to read as follows: On page 2, section 5 -- the status line is corrected to read “Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk  Filed: June 3, 2003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Nos. 03-1047(L) (CA-02-1106-A) Darryl Allmond, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Deputy Cozza, et al., Defendants - Appellees. O R D E R The court amends its opinion filed May 20, 2003, as follows: On page 2, section 5 -- the status line is corrected to read “Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.” For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk  UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1047 DARRYL ALLMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY COZZA; DEPUTY WINSTEAD; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES DUNNING; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; DEPUTY MASON; SERGEANT ELLER; RICHARD R. RUSCAK, Defendants. No. 03-1107 DARRYL ALLMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPUTY COZZA; DEPUTY WINSTEAD; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE,  Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES DUNNING; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; DEPUTY MASON; SERGEANT ELLER; RICHARD R. RUSCAK, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1106-A) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryl Allmond, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Kearney Saba, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 4 PER CURIAM: Darryl Allmond appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for discovery sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Allmond v. Cozza, No. CA-02-1106- A (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2002; filed Jan. 2, 2003 & entered Jan. 6, 2003). 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 5