Case Name: Randy L. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt FULTON; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees; Randy L. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt Fulton; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees; Randy L. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt Fulton; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-22
Citations: 284 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: Nos. 08-1111, 08-1292, 08-1325
Parties: Randy L. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt FULTON; James Hammond, DefendantsAppellees. Randy L. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt Fulton; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees. Randy L. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt Fulton; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
Randy L. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt FULTON; James Hammond, DefendantsAppellees. Randy L. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt Fulton; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees. Randy L. Thomas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Harcourt Fulton; James Hammond, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 08-1111, 08-1292, 08-1325.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 22, 2008.
Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Sardar Mujeeb Shah-Khan, City Attorney’s Office, Charlotte, North Carolina; Mark Weston Johnson, McGuirewoods, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Randy L. Thomas appeals the district court's orders entered in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), which (1) granted the motions to dismiss filed by R. Harcourt Fulton and James Hammond (No. 08-1111); (2) denied Thomas' motions filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (No. OS-1292); and (3) reimposed a prefiling injunction on remand (No. 08-1325). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Fulton, No. 3:07-cv-00200-GCM, 2007 WL 4365660 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 2007; 2008 WL 320031, Feb. 4, 2008; 2008 WL 413855, Feb. 13, 2008). 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.