Case ID: f-appx_76/html/0515-01.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

Edward Harold SAUNDERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State Of NORTH CAROLINA; Richard W. Riddle, in his individual and official capacity as an agent of the State of North Carolina; Janice Faulkner; Angela Rivers, Controlled Substance Enforcement Officer, in her individual and official capacity as an agent of the State of North Carolina; Muriel K. Offerman, Secretary of Department of Revenue, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-6594.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 6, 2003.
    Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael David Youth, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Saunders v. North Carolina, No. CA-99-47-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 2003). With regard to Saunders’ due process claim, our review of the record leads us to conclude that no constitutional violation occurred. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 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.