UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7781 FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Keen Mountain Correc- tional Center; MARGARET WATKINS; GLEN E. CONRAD; ALAN KATZ; PAMELA ANNE SARGENT; D. A. BRAXTON, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7782 FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE; SUPERVISOR SPRADLIN; COUNSELOR VASS; SERGEANT PAYNE; EDWARD C. MORRIS; GENE M. JOHNSON; RICHARD A. YOUNG; LONNIE M. SAUNDERS; Y. ELSWICK, Defendants - Appellees.  No. 95-7783 FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE; GENE M. JOHNSON; RICHARD A. YOUNG; GEORGE DEEDS; D. A. BRAXTON; MARGRET WATKINS; MIKE SPRADLING; JAMES W. COFFEE; JULIE HALL; ALAN KATZ; PAMELA ANNE SARGENT; MARY E. SHEA, Esquire; T. P. KAGEY; GLEN E. CONRAD, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-7784 FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. A. YOUNG; GEORGE DEEDS; D. A. BRAXTON; R. C. METHENA, Defendants - Appellees. 2  No. 95-7785 FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; ALAN KATZ; PAMELA ANNE SARGENT; T. P. KAGEY; CASSANDRA HARISTON; GEORGE DEEDS; D. A. BRAXTON; MARGARET WATKINS; GENE M. JOHNSON; RICHARD A. YOUNG; PATRICK J. CURNEY; Y. ELSWICK; P. J. RICH; SUSAN COX; WANDA BARTON; J. W. BAKER; GLEN E. CONRAD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1069-R, CA-95-1070-R, CA-95-1071-R, CA-95-1072-R, CA-95- 1073-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no rever- sible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. Altizer v. Deeds, No. CA-95-1069-R; Altizer v. Angelone, Nos. CA-95-1070-R; CA-95-1071-R; CA-95-1073-R; Altizer v. Young, No. CA-95-1072-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 6 & 10, 1995). 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 4