Case Name: Lester Daniel BRYSON; John Frank Bowen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; Forrest D. Bridges, State Superior Court Judge; Graham C. Mullen, Federal District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-06
Citations: 71 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 03-6070
Parties: Lester Daniel BRYSON; John Frank Bowen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; Forrest D. Bridges, State Superior Court Judge; Graham C. Mullen, Federal District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 223–223

Head Matter:
Lester Daniel BRYSON; John Frank Bowen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert P. JOHNSTON, State Superior Court Judge; Forrest D. Bridges, State Superior Court Judge; Graham C. Mullen, Federal District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6070.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 16, 2003.
Decided Aug. 6, 2003.
Lester Daniel Bryson, John Frank Bowen, Appellants Pro Se. Gerald Patrick Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lester Daniel Bryson and John Frank Bowen appeal the district court's order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bryson v. Johnston, No. CA-02-252-1-2 (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 22, 2002 & entered Nov. 25, 2002). We deny Appellants' motions for appointment of counsel, for oral argument, and to dismiss as untimely the informal brief of Appellees Johnston and Bridges. We further deny as moot Appellants' motion to extend time to file PLRA documents and their informal brief. 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.