Case Name: Shan Edward CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. SHERRILL; Benjamin R. David; Jay D. Hockenbury; Kristin D. Parks; Margaret T. Cloutier; William H. Durham; Roy A. Cooper, III; Phyllis M. Gorham; D. Jack Hooks, Jr.; Sherri Horner-Lawrence; George P. Corvin; N.C. State Bar; N.C. Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 17-6907
Parties: Shan Edward CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. SHERRILL; Benjamin R. David; Jay D. Hockenbury; Kristin D. Parks; Margaret T. Cloutier; William H. Durham; Roy A. Cooper, III; Phyllis M. Gorham; D. Jack Hooks, Jr.; Sherri Horner-Lawrence; George P. Corvin; N.C. State Bar; N.C. Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 111–111

Head Matter:
Shan Edward CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. SHERRILL; Benjamin R. David; Jay D. Hockenbury; Kristin D. Parks; Margaret T. Cloutier; William H. Durham; Roy A. Cooper, III; Phyllis M. Gorham; D. Jack Hooks, Jr.; Sherri Horner-Lawrence; George P. Corvin; N.C. State Bar; N.C. Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6907
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Shan Edward Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shan Edward Carter appeals the district court's orders dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carter v. Sherill, No. 5:16-ct-03272-D (E.D.N.C. June 13 & July 17, 2017). We also deny Carter's motion to assign counsel. We dis-. pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED