UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2819 MARY MCLEOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DOE 1; DOE 2; DOE 3, Plaintiffs, versus HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCOR- PORATED; THE COUNTY OF FLORENCE, SOUTH CARO- LINA; HENRY PEOPLES, Mayor; TOWN OF TIMMONS- VILLE; SOLLIE FLOYD; MARY FLOYD; U.S. DEPART- MENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ANDREW CUOMO, Secretary; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; SAMUEL P. CARGILL, Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-97-3938-4-22) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Pedrick McWilliams, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina; James Carlisle Rushton, III, THE HYMAN LAW FIRM, Florence, South Carolina; Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; Brown William Johnson, CLARKE, JOHNSON, PETERSON & MCLEAN, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; Richard W. Arnold, Florence, South Carolina; William Roberts Calhoun, Jr., Sandra Reid Boney, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Daniel Malloy McEachin, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary McLeod appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny McLeod’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. See McLeod v. Honda of South Caro- lina Mfg., Inc., No. CA-97-3938-4-22 (D.S.C. Oct. 14, 1998). 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