UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6457 JOHN DAVID SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, in his individual and offi- cial capacity as the Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; DONALD GUILLORY, in his individual and official capacity as Warden of Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; LARRY JARVIS, in his individual capacity as Assistant Warden of the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virgin- ia; CECIL N. LEWIS, in his individual capacity as Chief of Security at the Powhatan Correc- tional Facility in the State of Virginia; LORETTA K. KELLY, in her individual capacity as Assistant Warden of Programs (AWP) at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; MARCIA ORNELAS, in her individual capacity as designated Grievance Coordinator at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; KENNETH SUTTON, in his individual capacity as Personal Property Offi- cer at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1081-2) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John David Simpson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simpson v. Angelone, No. CA-94-1081-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2