Case Name: Curtis E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Romaine SMITH, Correctional Officer; John Doe, Inmate, Defendants-Appellees; Curtis E. Crawford, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Simons, Unit Manager Professional and Individual Capacities; Romaine Smith, Correctional Counsel Professional and Individual Capacities; John Doe, Inmate, Professional and Individual Capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-03
Citations: 187 F. App'x 328
Docket Number: No. 06-6647, 06-6650
Parties: Curtis E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Romaine SMITH, Correctional Officer; John Doe, Inmate, Defendants—Appellees. Curtis E. Crawford, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C. Simons, Unit Manager Professional and Individual Capacities; Romaine Smith, Correctional Counsel Professional and Individual Capacities; John Doe, Inmate, Professional and Individual Capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 187
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
Curtis E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Romaine SMITH, Correctional Officer; John Doe, Inmate, Defendants—Appellees. Curtis E. Crawford, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C. Simons, Unit Manager Professional and Individual Capacities; Romaine Smith, Correctional Counsel Professional and Individual Capacities; John Doe, Inmate, Professional and Individual Capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6647, 06-6650.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2006.
Decided July 3, 2006.
Curtis E. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Curtis E. Crawford appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), in which he sought reconsideration of the court's order denying his motion to reopen his civil action. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Crawford v. Smith, No. 2:03-cv-00884-RBS-FB; Crawford v. Simons, No. 2:04-cv-307 (E.D.Va. Mar. 30, 2006). We deny Crawford's motion to appoint 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