Case Name: Randy L. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ynez OLSHAUSEN; Mary Ellen McDonald; Peter Gorman; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police; Charlotte-Mecklenburg; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-12
Citations: 316 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 08-1805
Parties: Randy L. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ynez OLSHAUSEN; Mary Ellen McDonald; Peter Gorman; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police; Charlotte-Mecklenburg; State of North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Randy L. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ynez OLSHAUSEN; Mary Ellen McDonald; Peter Gorman; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police; Charlotte-Mecklenburg; State of North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-1805.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 11, 2009.
Decided: March 12, 2009.
Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel William Clark, Tharrington, Smith, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Richard Harcourt Fulton, Office of the City Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Thomas J. Ziko, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy L. Thomas appeals the district court's order denying his motions for recusal, for a more definite statement, and for discovery in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. Olshausen, No. 3:07-cv-00130-GCM, 2008 WL 2468738 (W.D.N.C. June 16, 2008). We deny Thomas' motion for emergency relief. 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.
The district court dismissed the action, and we affirmed. Thomas v. Olshausen, 305 Fed. Appx. 55 (4th Cir.2008).