Case Name: Charles Franklin HARGETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. JACKSON; Ron Bell; Ms. Dial; Paula Smith; Rosemary Jackson; Phillip E. Stover, Defendants-Appellees, Theodis Beck; Boyd Bennett; Brenda Harden; Shirley Green; Judy Fogg; Ms. Boyette; Ms. Carter; George Kenworthy; Mr. Harrison, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-04
Citations: 178 F. App'x 301
Docket Number: No. 05-7862
Parties: Charles Franklin HARGETT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mr. JACKSON; Ron Bell; Ms. Dial; Paula Smith; Rosemary Jackson; Phillip E. Stover, Defendants—Appellees, Theodis Beck; Boyd Bennett; Brenda Harden; Shirley Green; Judy Fogg; Ms. Boyette; Ms. Carter; George Kenworthy; Mr. Harrison, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 301–301

Head Matter:
Charles Franklin HARGETT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mr. JACKSON; Ron Bell; Ms. Dial; Paula Smith; Rosemary Jackson; Phillip E. Stover, Defendants—Appellees, Theodis Beck; Boyd Bennett; Brenda Harden; Shirley Green; Judy Fogg; Ms. Boyette; Ms. Carter; George Kenworthy; Mr. Harrison, Defendants.
No. 05-7862.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 4, 2006.
Charles Franklin Hargett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Norwood Pitt Blanchard, III, Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Franklin Hargett, Jr., 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hargett v. Jackson, No. CA-04-392-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2005). 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