UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7387 GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNSELS OF A-7-8 UNIT AND B-1 UNIT; D. GARRHARTY, Warden; UNIT MANAGERS, A-7-8, B-1; LIEUTENANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN SER- GEANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN COMMANDING OFFICERS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN LAW LIBRARY MANAGER, A Unit, B Unit, Defendants - Appellees. No. 97-7414 GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNSELS OF A-7-8 UNIT AND B-1 UNIT; D. GARRHARTY, Warden; UNIT MANAGERS, A-7-8, B-1; LIEUTENANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN SER- GEANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN COMMANDING OFFICERS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN LAW LIBRARY MANAGER, A Unit, B Unit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-26-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Counsels, No. CA-97-26-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 17 & 30, 1997). We deny Appellant’s motion for an ex parte hearing. 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 3