Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06945/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06945-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Caldwell
Appellee
Raymond Griffin
Appellant
D. Harper
Appellee
Donnie Harrison
Appellee
Christy Highsmith
Appellee
John and Jane Doe
Appellee
S. Johnson
Appellee
Journalist and Media
Appellee
T. McElroy
Appellee
Detective McKeon
Appellee
Donald C. Pate
Appellee
C. Pierce
Appellee
Deborah Shandles
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6945

RAYMOND GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH SHANDLES, Assistant District Attorney; DONALD C. 

PATE, Trooper – NC State Highway Patrol; T. MCELROY, 

Detective – Raleigh Police Department; S. JOHNSON, Raleigh 

Police Officer; C. PIERCE, Raleigh Police Officer; D. 

HARPER, Raleigh Police Officer; DONNIE HARRISON, Wake County 

Sheriff; CHARLES CALDWELL, NC Public Defender; CHRISTY 

HIGHSMITH, Assistant Public Defender; JOURNALIST AND MEDIA; 

JOHN AND JANE DOE; DETECTIVE MCKEON, Raleigh Police 

Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03145-D)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Appeal: 16-6945 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6945 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Griffin appeals the district court’s orders 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after 

a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012) review, Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) action, and denying Griffin’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s motion for appointment of 

counsel and affirm the district court’s orders. See Griffin v. 

Shandles, No. 5:15-ct-03145-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 2016; May 18, 

2016). 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

Appeal: 16-6945 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3