Case Name: William DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.M. SOLOMON; J.N. Vaughan; William Carroll, Jr.; W.C. Vinson; B. Cotton; D. Glover, Lt.; D. Futrell, Lt.; Reginald E. Midgette, Rev.; Lucien Capone, III; James C. Johnson; Lunsford Long; Matthew Rouse, Jr.; N.M. James; Gerotha R. Spain; R.R. Mewborn; Boyd Bennett; Charles Stevens, Manager; R.C. King; C. Edwards; Gwen Norville; James Barber; Victoria Hunt, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-10
Citations: 202 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 06-6824
Parties: William DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.M. SOLOMON; J.N. Vaughan; William Carroll, Jr.; W.C. Vinson; B. Cotton; D. Glover, Lt.; D. Futrell, Lt.; Reginald E. Midgette, Rev.; Lucien Capone, III; James C. Johnson; Lunsford Long; Matthew Rouse, Jr.; N.M. James; Gerotha R. Spain; R.R. Mewborn; Boyd Bennett; Charles Stevens, Manager; R.C. King; C. Edwards; Gwen Norville; James Barber; Victoria Hunt, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
William DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.M. SOLOMON; J.N. Vaughan; William Carroll, Jr.; W.C. Vinson; B. Cotton; D. Glover, Lt.; D. Futrell, Lt.; Reginald E. Midgette, Rev.; Lucien Capone, III; James C. Johnson; Lunsford Long; Matthew Rouse, Jr.; N.M. James; Gerotha R. Spain; R.R. Mewborn; Boyd Bennett; Charles Stevens, Manager; R.C. King; C. Edwards; Gwen Norville; James Barber; Victoria Hunt, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6824.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 10, 2006.
William Duncan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
William Duncan appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Duncan v. Solomon, No. 5:06-ct-03001-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2006). 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.