Case Name: John Russell WIMBERLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven T. ROGERS, in his official capacity as inspector for Wilson, NC; Mia Smith, in her official capacity as inspector for Wilson, NC; Burt Garris, in his official capacity of the Wilson Police Department; John Doe, individually and in his lawful capacity as locksmith at M & W Locksmith in Wilson, NC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-18
Citations: 66 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 02-2141
Parties: John Russell WIMBERLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven T. ROGERS, in his official capacity as inspector for Wilson, NC; Mia Smith, in her official capacity as inspector for Wilson, NC; Burt Garris, in his official capacity of the Wilson Police Department; John Doe, individually and in his lawful capacity as locksmith at M & W Locksmith in Wilson, NC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
John Russell WIMBERLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven T. ROGERS, in his official capacity as inspector for Wilson, NC; Mia Smith, in her official capacity as inspector for Wilson, NC; Burt Garris, in his official capacity of the Wilson Police Department; John Doe, individually and in his lawful capacity as locksmith at M & W Locksmith in Wilson, NC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-2141.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 6, 2003.
Decided June 18, 2003.
John Russell Wimberley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Percy Cauley, III, Tom Slade Rand, Jr., Rose, Rand, Orcutt, Cau ley & Blake, P.A., Wilson, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John Russell Wimberley, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wimberley v. Rogers, No. CA-02-890-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2002). Wimberley's motions to deny the Defendants' brief and for injunctive relief are denied. 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.