Case Name: Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William YOUNG, Chief Judge, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-30
Citations: 164 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 05-1919
Parties: Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William YOUNG, Chief Judge, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William YOUNG, Chief Judge, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-1919.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 30, 2006.
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chukwuma E. Azubuko appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Azubuko v. Young, No. CA-05-83 (M.D.N.C. filed Aug. 2, 2005 & entered Aug. 3, 2005). Further, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in construing Azubuko's motion for three-judge court as a motion to reconsider and denying the motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 204 (4th Cir.2003) ("District court decisions granting or denying [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 60(b) relief are reviewed for abuse of discretion.... "). We deny Azubuko's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.
DISMISSED