Case Name: Charles Robert BAREFOOT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy THORTON; John Cornley, Chief Deputy; Kem Pickett, Captain; George Dewey Hudson, Jr., District Attorney, Sampson County; Jamie B. Askins, Assistant District Attorney; James Freeman, Assistant District Attorney; Lieutenant Silvester Wilson; Marvin Polk; Kevin John McReainy; Earl Butler; Donnie Harrison; W. Stveda, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-15
Citations: 235 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 07-6727
Parties: Charles Robert BAREFOOT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jimmy THORTON; John Cornley, Chief Deputy; Kem Pickett, Captain; George Dewey Hudson, Jr., District Attorney, Sampson County; Jamie B. Askins, Assistant District Attorney; James Freeman, Assistant District Attorney; Lieutenant Silvester Wilson; Marvin Polk; Kevin John McReainy; Earl Butler; Donnie Harrison; W. Stveda, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 149–149

Head Matter:
Charles Robert BAREFOOT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jimmy THORTON; John Cornley, Chief Deputy; Kem Pickett, Captain; George Dewey Hudson, Jr., District Attorney, Sampson County; Jamie B. Askins, Assistant District Attorney; James Freeman, Assistant District Attorney; Lieutenant Silvester Wilson; Marvin Polk; Kevin John McReainy; Earl Butler; Donnie Harrison; W. Stveda, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6727.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 3, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 15, 2007.
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr. appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barefoot v. Thorton, No. 5:06-ct-03109-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2007). 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.