Case Name: Theodus LINDSAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William GLICK, III; Mr. Brandhorst; Ms. Barringer; Cordelia McBride; Ebony Ratliff; Mr. Hildreth; Mr. Huneycutt; Ms. Robinson; Mr. Lookabill; Ms. Bruton; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Hargrave; Mr. Bradford; Macre Crider; Victor Locklear; Monica Bond, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-25
Citations: 696 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 17-6400
Parties: Theodus LINDSAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William GLICK, III; Mr. Brandhorst; Ms. Barringer; Cordelia McBride; Ebony Ratliff; Mr. Hildreth; Mr. Huneycutt; Ms. Robinson; Mr. Lookabill; Ms. Bruton; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Hargrave; Mr. Bradford; Macre Crider; Victor Locklear; Monica Bond, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
Theodus LINDSAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William GLICK, III; Mr. Brandhorst; Ms. Barringer; Cordelia McBride; Ebony Ratliff; Mr. Hildreth; Mr. Huneycutt; Ms. Robinson; Mr. Lookabill; Ms. Bruton; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Hargrave; Mr. Bradford; Macre Crider; Victor Locklear; Monica Bond, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6400
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 15, 2017
Decided: August 25, 2017
Theodus Lindsay, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tammera Sudderth Hill, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodus Lindsay, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lindsay's motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lindsay v. Glick, No. l:15-cv-00596-LCB-JLW, 2017 WL 1034791 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2017). We dispense 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