Case Name: Gary L. DeTEMPLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George PAUGH, Chief of Police; Patrick Dacey, Officer; Mark D. Panepinto; Mr. Weekley, Locksmith; Arthur Mckenzie, Mayor of Bethlehem; Village of Bethlehem, A municipal Corporation, West Virginia; Joseph Roxby, Officer; Dwayne Davis, Individual, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Officer, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-25
Citations: 59 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 02-2122
Parties: Gary L. DeTEMPLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George PAUGH, Chief of Police; Patrick Dacey, Officer; Mark D. Panepinto; Mr. Weekley, Locksmith; Arthur Mckenzie, Mayor of Bethlehem; Vil lage of Bethlehem, A municipal Corporation, West Virginia; Joseph Roxby, Officer; Dwayne Davis, Individual, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Officer, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 59
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Gary L. DeTEMPLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George PAUGH, Chief of Police; Patrick Dacey, Officer; Mark D. Panepinto; Mr. Weekley, Locksmith; Arthur Mckenzie, Mayor of Bethlehem; Vil lage of Bethlehem, A municipal Corporation, West Virginia; Joseph Roxby, Officer; Dwayne Davis, Individual, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Officer, Defendant.
No. 02-2122.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided March 25, 2003.
Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gary L. DeTemple appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See DeTemple v. Paugh, No. CA-01-126-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 8, 2002; July 26, 2002). 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.