Case ID: f-appx_51/html/0426-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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, v. 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.
    
      No. 00-7161.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
    Charles E. Hinton, Rahim Waliyy Sha-kur, Frank Robinson, Jr., Sheldon Collins, Appellants Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   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.