Case Name: Michael McLEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. STIENEKE; James French; Randall Lee; James Smith, Doctor; Officer Philmon; Officer Pittman; Officer Pullen; Officer Rooks; Officer Brody; Officer Daniels; Officer Pears; Officer Peterson; Officer Ingram; Officer Pullen; Officer Harris, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-18
Citations: 180 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 05-7784
Parties: Michael McLEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. STIENEKE; James French; Randall Lee; James Smith, Doctor; Officer Philmon; Officer Pittman; Officer Pullen; Officer Rooks; Offi cer Brody; Officer Daniels; Officer Pears; Officer Peterson; Officer Ingram; Officer Pullen; Officer Harris, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Michael McLEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. STIENEKE; James French; Randall Lee; James Smith, Doctor; Officer Philmon; Officer Pittman; Officer Pullen; Officer Rooks; Offi cer Brody; Officer Daniels; Officer Pears; Officer Peterson; Officer Ingram; Officer Pullen; Officer Harris, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-7784.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2006.
Decided May 18, 2006.
Michael McLean, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael McLean appeals the district court's orders denying his motions to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the l'easons stated by the district court. See McLean v. Stieneke, No. CA-05-222-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2005; filed Oct. 7, 2005 & entered Oct. 24, 2005). 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.