Case Name: James Edward HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH; Raleigh Chief of Police; Officer Maddock; Officer Dufault; Officer J.W. Bishop; Officer S.M. Hoolan; Officer D.B. Kilgore, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-02
Citations: 235 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 07-6065
Parties: James Edward HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH; Raleigh Chief of Police; Officer Maddock; Officer Dufault; Officer J.W. Bishop; Officer S.M. Hoolan; Officer D.B. Kilgore, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 114–114

Head Matter:
James Edward HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH; Raleigh Chief of Police; Officer Maddock; Officer Dufault; Officer J.W. Bishop; Officer S.M. Hoolan; Officer D.B. Kilgore, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-6065.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2007.
James Edward Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Harris appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. City of Raleigh, No. 5:06-cv-00496-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2006; Jan. 3, 2007). 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.