Case Name: Edward Lee MOSES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BLOCHER; Michael Hardee; Hugh Martin, Jr.; Hattie B. Pimpong, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-29
Citations: 326 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 09-6132
Parties: Edward Lee MOSES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. M. BLOCHER; Michael Hardee; Hugh Martin, Jr.; Hattie B. Pimpong, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
Edward Lee MOSES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. M. BLOCHER; Michael Hardee; Hugh Martin, Jr.; Hattie B. Pimpong, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-6132.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2009.
Decided: May 29, 2009.
Edward Lee Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Lee Moses appeals the district court's order and judgment granting the Appellees' motion to dismiss and denying relief on 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. See Moses v. Blocker, No. 5:07-ct-03070-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2009). 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.