UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7356 ROBERT EUGENE INMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARION CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CENTER; TOM DOSS, Medical Supervisor; ALFREDO RAYNAUD, Horna Psychiatrist; COLIN C. J. ANGLIKER, Chief Psychiatrist; MICHAEL KLEINOT, Psychologist; J. W. ARMENTROUT, Assistant Warden; J. T. HALL, Captain; ROBERT SERGEANT; NURSE CAROL; JIM WARD, Food Manager; KENNETH OSBORNE, Warden; JAMES D. HALL, Corrections Lieutenant; RICHARD YOUNG, Regional Director; E. C. MORRIS, Deputy Director; JAMES BRIGGS, Ombuds- man Manager; P. J. RICH, Regional Ombudsman; RON ANGELONE, Director Commissioner; INTERNAL AFFAIRS, Marion Correctional Food Service, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHNNY RUSSELL, Inmate Hearings Officer; CHARLES LINCOLN, Attorney; JOY EVANS, District Attorney; JURY-APPEAL, The Jury at 2nd Commit- ment Appeal, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-502) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Eugene Inman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Inman v. Virginia Dep't of Corr., No. CA-97-502 (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1997). We also deny Appellant's motions to amend, for malicious prosecution, and for slander and false accu- sation. 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. DISMISSED 3