Case Name: Peter BURKE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer James JUDGE; Officer Gary Bray, Defendants-Appellees, and Captain David Owens; Doctor Tolson; Nurse Georgia; Judge Beamon, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-29
Citations: 408 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 10-6215
Parties: Peter BURKE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer James JUDGE; Officer Gary Bray, Defendants—Appellees, and Captain David Owens; Doctor Tolson; Nurse Georgia; Judge Beamon, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Peter BURKE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer James JUDGE; Officer Gary Bray, Defendants—Appellees, and Captain David Owens; Doctor Tolson; Nurse Georgia; Judge Beamon, Defendants.
No. 10-6215.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2010.
Peter Burke, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Louis Phillip Hornthal, III, Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, LLP, Elizabeth City, North Cax-olina; Craig Douglas Cannon, James R. Morgan, Jr., Womble, Carlyle, Sandx’idge & Rice, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Walter Gx’egory Merritt, Jay C. Salsman, Harris, Creech, Ward & Blackerby, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affix-med by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions ax-e not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Burke, Sr., appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burke v. Owens, No. 5:07-ct-03162-FL (W.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2010). 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.