UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT ALLEN BANE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MR. ROBINSON; DOCTOR MAY;
DOCTOR THOMPSON; RON ANGELONE,
Director, Virginia Department of
                                                                    No. 97-7591
Corrections; E. B. WALKER,
Assistant Warden; MS. EPPERSON,
Head Nurse; E. WHITLEY, Nurse,
LPN; J. H. FIELDS, Regional
Ombudsman; SERGEANT LOVE;
SERGEANT TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-243-AM)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: November 6, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Allen Bane, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Butter-
worth Stutts, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Allen Bane appeals from the district court's order dismiss-
ing his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A.§ 1983 (West
Supp. 1998), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A.
§§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) (ADA). We have
reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no
reversible error regarding Bane's § 1983 claims. Accordingly, we
affirm the dismissal of these claims on the reasoning of the district
court. Bane v. Robinson, No. CA-96-243-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 17,
1997).

Turning to Bane's ADA claim, we note that the district court dis-
posed of this claim under our holding in Amos v. Maryland Depart-
ment of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 

 (4th
Cir. 1997), stating that the ADA does not apply to prisons. During the
pendency of Bane's appeal, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, ___ U.S. ___, 

 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-634), that Title II of the ADA does
apply to state prison and prisoners. Following this announcement, the
Court vacated our opinion in Amos. Our review of the record leads us
to conclude that, notwithstanding Title II's applicability to state pris-
ons, the district court properly disposed of Bane's ADA claims
because his pleadings fail to establish a violation of Title II or any
other Title of the ADA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's
holding on this alternative ground.

We also deny Bane's pending motions for a special order of injunc-
tion or compulsion as moot. We dispense with oral argument because

                    2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    3