Case ID: f-appx_20/html/0212-02.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

Michael BRADLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. David BURTON; Seth Hunt; Lawrence Thompson; John Doe; Ted Nelson; Hae Jin Chung; Sharon Whitaker; Barbara Frady, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-7172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 4, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 12, 2001.
    Michael Bradley, pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Michael Bradley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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 on the reasoning of the district court. Bradley v. Burton, No. CA-01-114-1-MU (W.D.N.C. July 2, 2001). We deny Bradley’s motion for appointment a guardian ad litem. 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.