Case Name: Jeffrey D. LANCASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry MONETTE; Nancy Tootle; Frank Henderson; John Potter; John Doe; James Doe; Jim Doe; Bob Doe; Robert Doe; Larry Norman; Linda Blount; Craven County Commissioners; Bonnie Doe; Willey Doe; George Doe; Bobby Doe, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-21
Citations: 30 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 01-7717
Parties: Jeffrey D. LANCASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry MONETTE; Nancy Tootle; Frank Henderson; John Potter; John Doe; James Doe; Jim Doe; Bob Doe; Robert Doe; Larry Norman; Linda Blount; Craven County Commissioners; Bonnie Doe; Willey Doe; George Doe; Bobby Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
Jeffrey D. LANCASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry MONETTE; Nancy Tootle; Frank Henderson; John Potter; John Doe; James Doe; Jim Doe; Bob Doe; Robert Doe; Larry Norman; Linda Blount; Craven County Commissioners; Bonnie Doe; Willey Doe; George Doe; Bobby Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7717.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 13, 2002.
Decided March 21, 2002.
Jeffrey D. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, Sumrell, Sugg, Carmichael, Hicks & Hart, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey D. Lancaster appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lancaster v. Monette, No. CA-99-481-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2001). 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.