UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1709

HAYWOOD CLAYTON, d/b/a ICMM, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALGIE STEPHENS; WOODROW D. WILLIAMS; LARRY VICK; TIMOTHY GUNTHER; TANNER AND ROGEL, P.A.; S&H TRAILERS, INCORPORATED; MELVIN STANCIL; GLENN DUNN; POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP; JUDITH R. BULLOCK; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES; MICHAEL WILLFORD;SOUTHCHEM, INCORPORATED; JOE COLLIE, as executive officer of SouthChem and individually; GIL STEADMAN; SEAN CALLINICOS; MAUPIN, TAYLOR, ELLIS & ADAMS; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 97-2222

HAYWOOD CLAYTON, d/b/a ICMM, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALGIE STEPHENS; WOODROW D. WILLIAMS; LARRY VICK; TIMOTHY GUNTHER; TANNER AND ROGEL, P.A.; S&H TRAILERS, INCORPORATED; MELVIN STANCIL; GLENN DUNN; POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP; JUDITH R. BULLOCK; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES; MICHAEL WILLFORD; SOUTHCHEM, INCORPORATED; JOE COLLIE, as exec-2 utive officer of SouthChem and individually; GIL STEADMAN; SEAN CALLINICOS; MAUPIN, TAYLOR, ELLIS & ADAMS; JOHN DOE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-518-5-BR)
Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: May 5, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Haywood Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Odes Lawrence Stroupe, Jr., BODE, CALL & STROUPE, L.L .P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark Anderson Finkelstein, THE SANFORD HOLSHOUSER LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina; Grayson Lawrence Reeves, Jr., PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina; LeAnn M. Tanner, RHODES & ROGEL, P.A., Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina; Terry Richard Kane, POYNER & SPRUILL, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Roy Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, John McKinley Kirby, II, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In No. 97-1709, Haywood Clayton appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his federal claims, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 (West 1984 & Supp. 1998), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 6972 (1994), and declining to exercise jurisdiction over his pendant state law claims, see Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650- 52 (4th Cir. 1988). Clayton also appeals the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district court's orders and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clayton v. Stephens , No. CA-96-518-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 1996; Feb. 11, 1997). In No. 97-2222, Clayton appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the imposition of a sanction, specifically a prefiling review order pertaining to any future action filed by Clayton against the Defendants raising the claims involved in this action. Our review of the record and thedistrict court's orders reveals no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion for reconsideration. See National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue , 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED