Case Name: James Alvin BOULWARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. EZELL; Charles McQueen; Richard Trombley; Saure Robinson; Daniell Shaw, Defendants-Appellees, and Tom Smith; Jason Ellis; Bonnie Hays; David Mitchell, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-23
Citations: 69 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 02-7364
Parties: James Alvin BOULWARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. EZELL; Charles McQueen; Richard Trombley; Saure Robinson; Daniell Shaw, Defendants-Appellees, and Tom Smith; Jason Ellis; Bonnie Hays; David Mitchell, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 107–107

Head Matter:
James Alvin BOULWARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. EZELL; Charles McQueen; Richard Trombley; Saure Robinson; Daniell Shaw, Defendants-Appellees, and Tom Smith; Jason Ellis; Bonnie Hays; David Mitchell, Defendants.
No. 02-7364.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 23, 2003.
James Alvin Boulware, Appellant Pro Se. Monica Foust Speight, Jonathan A. Berkelhammer, Smith Moore, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Alvin Boulware appeals the district court's orders dismissing his due process claim alleging that he was denied access to certain legal materials; and granting summary judgment to the Defendants and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Boulware v. Ezell, No. CA-99-226-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed May 30, 2000 & entered May 31, 2000; filed Aug. 30, 2002 & entered Sept. 3, 2002). We deny Boulware's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.