Filed: Feb. 28, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7308 LEE WAYNE HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA L. CHAVIS; ROGER THOMPSON; EMILIO PAGAN; SAMUEL SMITH, Defendants - Appellees, and DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-942-5-F) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7308 LEE WAYNE HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA L. CHAVIS; ROGER THOMPSON; EMILIO PAGAN; SAMUEL SMITH, Defendants - Appellees, and DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-942-5-F) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7308 LEE WAYNE HUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA L. CHAVIS; ROGER THOMPSON; EMILIO PAGAN; SAMUEL SMITH, Defendants - Appellees, and DANIEL L. STIENEKE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-942-5-F) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Wayne Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lee Wayne Hunt appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hunt’s motion for ap- pointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hunt v. Chavis, No. CA-98-942-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2000). 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 2