Hinton v. Gilchrist ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-7161
    CHARLES E. HINTON; RAKIM WALIYY SHAKUR;
    FRANK ROBINSON, JR.; SHELDON COLLINS,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    VANN SONG; KEVIN MCGILL; DAVID STANLEY; JOHNNY
    L. BURRIS; TYMONE NELSON; DEMETRIUS DIXON;
    CARLOS J. WEATHERS; DARRELL L. PERRY; JAMES H.
    EVANS; BYRON L. JACKSON; KURTIS S. BENJAMIN;
    LOREN HENDERSON,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    PETER S. GILCHRIST, III; JANE DOE, Superior
    Court Clerk; JOHN DOE, District Court Judge,
    Court Room 1101, on 3/14/00; ISABEL SCOTT DAY,
    Public Defender, District 26; KEVIN P. TULLY,
    Assistant Public Defender; MARC S. GENTILE,
    Assistant Public Defender; GAY R. ATKINS,
    Attorney at Law, Assistant Public Defender;
    ALICIA BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Assistant
    Public Defender; SHARON JUMPER, Attorney at
    Law, Assistant Public Defender; JEAN LAWSON,
    Attorney at Law, Assistant Public Defender;
    STEPHANIE JORDAN, Attorney at Law, Assistant
    Public Defender; JOHN TOTTEN, Attorney at Law,
    Assistant Public Defender; GREGORY L. WOODS,
    Assistant Public Defender; JIM PENDERGRAPH,
    Sheriff; HAAKON THORSEN, Attorney at Law,
    Assistant Public Defender; CHARLES MORGAN,
    JR., Attorney at Law, Assistant Public
    Defender,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    2
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-00-246-3-3-MU)
    Submitted:   October 24, 2002          Decided:   December 2, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles E. Hinton, Rahim Waliyy Shakur, Frank Robinson, Jr.,
    Sheldon Collins, Appellants Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    3
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
    their 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) 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. See Hinton v. Gilchrist, No. CA-00-246-3-3-MU (E.D.N.C. July
    7, 2000).     Loren Henderson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis
    and for the appointment of counsel at the Government’s expense are
    denied as moot.    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
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-7161

Filed Date: 12/2/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014