Case Name: James Benjamin BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam DOTSON, in his individual capacity; Chris Surratt, in his individual capacity; James Johnson, in his individual capacity; Curtis Sturgill, in his individual capacity; Sid Harkleroad, in his individual capacity; Boyd Bennett, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 242 F. App'x 19
Docket Number: No. 07-6770
Parties: James Benjamin BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sam DOTSON, in his individual capacity; Chris Surratt, in his individual capacity; James Johnson, in his individual capacity; Curtis Sturgill, in his individual capacity; Sid Harkleroad, in his individual capacity; Boyd Bennett, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 19–19

Head Matter:
James Benjamin BROWN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sam DOTSON, in his individual capacity; Chris Surratt, in his individual capacity; James Johnson, in his individual capacity; Curtis Sturgill, in his individual capacity; Sid Harkleroad, in his individual capacity; Boyd Bennett, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6770.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
James Benjamin Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Benjamin Brown appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Dotson, No. l:07-cv-00114-03MU, 2007 WL 1033359 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2007). 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.