Case Name: Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pat PINER; Harold Maynard; Susan Briggs; Stephen Kushner; Kimberly Ledford; George Glenn, II; Steven Gheen, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-07
Citations: 91 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 03-2150
Parties: Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pat PINER; Harold Maynard; Susan Briggs; Stephen Kushner; Kimberly Ledford; George Glenn, II; Steven Gheen, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
Charles T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pat PINER; Harold Maynard; Susan Briggs; Stephen Kushner; Kimberly Ledford; George Glenn, II; Steven Gheen, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-2150.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2004.
Decided April 7, 2004.
Charles T. Sherwin, Appellant pro se.
Zebulon Dyer Anderson, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jer nigan, Raleigh, North Carolina; John Francis Morris, Moms, York, Williams, Surles & Barringer, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Joseph C. Moore, III, Allen & Moore, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., William McBlief, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina; Myra Leake Griffin, North Carolina Industrial Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charles T. Sherwin appeals the district court's orders dismissing under Fed. R.CÍV.P. 12(b)(6) his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, see Sherwin v. Piner, No. CA-03-275-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed July 21, 2003; entered July 22, 2003 & filed Aug. 11, 2003; entered Aug. 12, 2003), and we deny Sherwin's motion for remand. 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