e L. PEARSON;  Joseph Garman;  Willie Boswell;  J.A.Smith, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 95-7848.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 1996.Decided April 10, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.  (CA-95-1144-AM)
Guy R. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:


1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 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.   Johnson v. Pearson, No. CA-95-1144-AM (E.D.Va. Oct. 16, 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



501 U.S. 32 (1991)
CHAMBERS
v.
NASCO, INC.
No. 90-256.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Argued February 27, 1991.
Decided June 6, 1991
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
*35 Mack E. Barham argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert E. Arceneaux and Russell T. Tritico.
Joel I. Klein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Christopher D. Cerf, David A. Bono, Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr., Jon D. Ross, John B. Scofield, and David L. Hoskins.
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to explore the scope of the inherent power of a federal court to sanction a litigant for bad-faith conduct. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether the District Court, sitting in diversity, properly invoked its inherent power in assessing as a sanction for a party's bad-faith conduct attorney's fees and related expenses paid by the party's opponent to its attorneys. We hold that the District Court acted within its discreti