Case Name: Michael Craig CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jonathan NIXON; Jeff Proctor; State of North Carolina; Donald Hobbs; Kent Chappell; Cliff Hobbs; Paul Copeland; Wally Hobbs; Chad Matthews; Alan Corprew; Scott Waff, Defendants-Appellees, and Mark DAVIS; John V. Matthews; Perquimans County, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-09
Citations: 114 F. App'x 582
Docket Number: No. 04-1802
Parties: Michael Craig CLARK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jonathan NIXON; Jeff Proctor; State of North Carolina; Donald Hobbs; Kent Chappell; Cliff Hobbs; Paul Copeland; Wally Hobbs; Chad Matthews; Alan Corprew; Scott Waff, Defendants—Appellees, and Mark DAVIS; John V. Matthews; Perquimans County, Defendants.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
Michael Craig CLARK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jonathan NIXON; Jeff Proctor; State of North Carolina; Donald Hobbs; Kent Chappell; Cliff Hobbs; Paul Copeland; Wally Hobbs; Chad Matthews; Alan Corprew; Scott Waff, Defendants—Appellees, and Mark DAVIS; John V. Matthews; Perquimans County, Defendants.
No. 04-1802.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 22, 2004.
Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
Michael Craig Clark, Appellant pro se. Donald Carpenter Prentiss, Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Michael Craig Clark appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his civil complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Clark v. Nixon, No. CA-02-47-2-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2002 & June 3, 2004). 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