Case Name: Larry Brandon MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in his official capacity; George T. Solomon, Director of N.C.D.P.S., D.A.C., individually and in their official capacity; Peck Taylor, Assistant Superintendent of Custody and Operations and Acting Superintendent at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-27
Citations: 687 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 16-7650
Parties: Larry Brandon MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in his official capacity; George T. Solomon, Director of N.C.D.P.S., D.A.C., individually and in their official capacity; Peck Taylor, Assistant Superintendent of Custody and Operations and Acting Superintendent at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
Larry Brandon MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in his official capacity; George T. Solomon, Director of N.C.D.P.S., D.A.C., individually and in their official capacity; Peck Taylor, Assistant Superintendent of Custody and Operations and Acting Superintendent at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7650
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 27, 2017
Larry Brandon Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Brandon Moore appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Moore's motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Moore v. Mull, No. 1:16-cv-00249-FDW, 2016 WL 8711523 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2016). 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