Case Name: Thomas M. HACKLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney; John Joseph Miller, III, Buncombe County Sheriff, Buncombe County Sheriffs Office; Bobby Lee Medford, Defendants-Appellees; Thomas M. Hackler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of North Carolina; Buncombe County Sheriff, Buncombe County Sheriffs Office; John Joseph Miller, III; Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney; Bobby Lee Medford, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-06
Citations: 37 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: Nos. 02-6353, 02-6358
Parties: Thomas M. HACKLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney; John Joseph Miller, III, Buncombe County Sheriff, Buncombe County Sheriffs Office; Bobby Lee Medford, Defendants-Appellees. Thomas M. Hackler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of North Carolina; Buncombe County Sheriff, Buncombe County Sheriffs Office; John Joseph Miller, III; Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney; Bobby Lee Medford, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 37
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
Thomas M. HACKLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney; John Joseph Miller, III, Buncombe County Sheriff, Buncombe County Sheriffs Office; Bobby Lee Medford, Defendants-Appellees. Thomas M. Hackler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of North Carolina; Buncombe County Sheriff, Buncombe County Sheriffs Office; John Joseph Miller, III; Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney; Bobby Lee Medford, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 02-6353, 02-6358.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 30, 2002.
Decided June 6, 2002.
Thomas M. Hackler, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM Opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas M. Hackler appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Hackler v. North Carolina, Nos. CA-02-20-MU-1-2 & CA-02-23-1-2-MU (W.D.N.C., filed Jan. 31, 2002; entered Feb. 4, 2002). 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.