Case Name: Georgia A. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher MAROULES; Christopher Cafe; Chris Jenkins, Sheriff; Henry Clayton Keel, Sheriff; Allen Seymour, Sheriff; W.E. Billy Smith, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 328 F. App'x 868
Docket Number: No. 09-1051
Parties: Georgia A. GREEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Christopher MAROULES; Christopher Cafe; Chris Jenkins, Sheriff; Henry Clayton Keel, Sheriff; Allen Seymour, Sheriff; W.E. Billy Smith, Sheriff, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 868–868

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter
UNPUBLISHED
Georgia A. GREEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Christopher MAROULES; Christopher Cafe; Chris Jenkins, Sheriff; Henry Clayton Keel, Sheriff; Allen Seymour, Sheriff; W.E. Billy Smith, Sheriff, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-1051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 27, 2009.
Georgia A. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Dal Floyd Wooten, III, Kinston, North Carolina; Kari Russwurm Johnson, Cran-fill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Georgia A. Green appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Green v. Maroules, No. 4:04-cv-00111-H (E.D.N.C. June 4, 2007; Sept. 2, 2008, Oct. 31, 2008, Nov. 5, 2008, Dec. 1, 2008 & Jan. 5, 2009). We deny Green's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.