UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2577

ROBERT LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUSSELL G. WALKER, JR., N. C. Superior Court

Judge, in his official and individual capacities; JOE FREEMAN BRITT, N. C. Superior Court

Judge, in his official and individual capacities; MICHAEL EASLEY, N. C. Attorney General,

in his official and individual capacities;

JAMES C. FOX, U. S. District Court Judge, in

his official and individual capacities; W.

EARL BRITT, U. S. District Court Judge, in his

official and individual capacities; MALCOLM J.

HOWARD, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; TERRENCE W.

BOYLE, U. S. District Court Judge, in his

official and individual capacities; WALLACE W.

DIXON, U. S. Magistrate Judge, in his official

and individual capacities; DAVID W. DANIEL, U.

S. District Court, in his official and

individual capacities; JANICE M. COLE, U. S.

Attorney, in her official and individual

capacities; PAUL M. NEWBY, Assistant U. S.

Attorney, in his official and individual

capacities; STAN TODD, Assistant District

Attorney, in his official and individual

capacities; RICHARD TOWNSEND, Robeson County

District Attorney, in his official and individual capacities; MARK BRADLEY, City Police

Officer, in his official and individual

capacities; DON WARD, City Police Officer, in

his official and individual capacities; HARRY

DOLAN, Chief of Police, in his official and

individual capacities; FRANKIE G. FLOYD,

private citizen, in her individual capacity;
2

JAMIE MICHELLE FLOYD, private citizen, in her

individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CA-98-116-7-F)

No. 00-1838

ROBERT LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ROBESON COUNTY, Board of

Education, in its official capacity; DOUGLAS

Y. YONGUE, in his official and individual

capacities; ARNOLD LOCKLEAR, in his official

and individual capacities; TOMMY D. SWETT, in

his official and individual capacities; BETH

WILLIAMSON, in her official and individual

capacities; ABNER HARRINGTON, in his official

and individual capacities; MIKE SMITH, in his

official and individual capacities; PAUL

BROOKS, in his official and individual capacities; ROBERT DEESE, in his official and

individual capacities; BERRY HARDING, in his

official and individual capacities; JAMES C.

FOX, U. S. District Court Judge, in his official and individual capacities; W. EARL BRITT,

U. S. District Court Judge, in his official

and individual capacities; MALCOLM J. HOWARD,

U. S. District Court Judge, in his official

and individual capacities; TERRENCE W. BOYLE,

U. S. District Court Judge, in his official

and individual capacities; STACEY L. FULLER,
3

Private Individual, in her individual capacity; KELVIN STONE, U. S. Marshal, in his individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. William L. Osteen,

District Judge, sitting by designation. (MISC-99-2-5)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. David Fred Hoke, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jerri Ulrica Dunston,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina;

Patricia Pursell Kerner, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North Carolina;

Alexander M. Hall, HALL, HORNE & SULLIVAN, L.L.P., Wilmington,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Davis appeals the district court’s orders denying

his civil action, motion to reconsider, and “opposition” to

District Judge Osteen ruling on his action. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See No. 99-2577, Davis v. Walker, No. CA-98-116-7-F

(E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 1999; Oct. 22, 1999); No. 00-1838, Davis v.

Public Sch. of Robeson Cty., No. MISC-99-2-5 (E.D.N.C. filed

June 9, 2000; entered June 14, 2000). We also 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