Wimberley v. City of Wilson NC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2064
JOHN RUSSELL WIMBERLEY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA; CITY OF WILSON
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT; STEVE ROGERS, individ-
ual and is an inspector in the Wilson City
Inspection Department; MIA SMITH, Individual
and is an Inspector in the Wilson City In-
spection Department; JEFF WINSTEAD, Individual
and is an Inspector in the Wilson City
Inspection Department; KEITH O’BRIEN, Individ-
ual and is an Inspector in the Wilson City
Inspection Department; JIM HOLLOMAN, Individ-
ual and is an Inspection Manager in the Wilson
City Inspection Department; WINNIE WILLIAMS,
Individual and is the Chief of the Wilson City
Police Department; CITY OF WILSON CITY
COUNCIL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-451-5-BO(2))
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Russell Wimberley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Russell Wimberley, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.
2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of relief on the federal claims on the reasoning
of the district court. Wimberley v. City of Wilson, No. CA-01-451-
5-BO(2) (E.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 2001). Because the district court
properly denied Wimberley’s federal claims, we find that the court
properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over his pendent state
law claims. Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650-52 (4th Cir. 1988).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2