Case Name: Timothy E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shelly DeMARINO, Prosecuting Attorney; R. Russell Stobbs, Defense Counsel; Jack Alsop, Judge, in their individual capacities as private citizens of the State of West Virginia, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-10
Citations: 45 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 02-6701
Parties: Timothy E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shelly DeMARINO, Prosecuting Attorney; R. Russell Stobbs, Defense Counsel; Jack Alsop, Judge, in their individual capacities as private citizens of the State of West Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
Timothy E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shelly DeMARINO, Prosecuting Attorney; R. Russell Stobbs, Defense Counsel; Jack Alsop, Judge, in their individual capacities as private citizens of the State of West Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6701.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 5, 2002.
Decided Sept. 10, 2002.
Timothy E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Timothy E. Miller appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Miller's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. DeMarino, No. CA-01-183-1 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 24, 2002). 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.