Case Name: Walter CLINE; William Hagler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arthur BINDER, in his official capacity and individually as Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, North Carolina; Morris Bedsole, in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Cumberland County and individually; Jimmy Henley; John Doe, in their official capacities and individually; Cumberland County, North Carolina, and the Office of the Sheriff of Cumberland County, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-19
Citations: 13 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 01-1123
Parties: Walter CLINE; William Hagler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arthur BINDER, in his official capacity and individually as Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, North Carolina; Morris Bedsole, in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Cumberland County and individually; Jimmy Henley; John Doe, in their official capacities and individually; Cumberland County, North Carolina, and the Office of the Sheriff of Cumberland County, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Walter CLINE; William Hagler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arthur BINDER, in his official capacity and individually as Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, North Carolina; Morris Bedsole, in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Cumberland County and individually; Jimmy Henley; John Doe, in their official capacities and individually; Cumberland County, North Carolina, and the Office of the Sheriff of Cumberland County, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1123.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2001.
Decided July 19, 2001.
Walter Cline, William Hagler, pro se. Douglas Edward Canders, Cumberland County Attorney’s Office, Fayetteville, NC, for appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Walter Cline and William Hagler appeal the district court's order denying their motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cline v. Binder, No. CA-96-811-5 BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2000). 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.