Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0635-01.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

Theodus LINDSAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William GLICK, III; Mr. Brandhorst; Ms. Barringer; Cordelia McBride; Ebony Ratliff; Mr. Hildreth; Mr. Huneycutt; Ms. Robinson; Mr. Lookabill; Ms. Bruton; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Hargrave; Mr. Bradford; Macre Crider; Victor Locklear; Monica Bond, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-6400
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 15, 2017
    Decided: August 25, 2017
    Theodus Lindsay, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tammera Sudderth Hill, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Theodus Lindsay, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lindsay’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lindsay v. Glick, No. l:15-cv-00596-LCB-JLW, 2017 WL 1034791 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED