Case Name: Carl Edward WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris HESS, District Attorney; Calvin Hill, Public Defender; D.T. Sheehan, Officer # 2167, Asheville Police Department; T.J. Jones, Officer #2206, Asheville Police Department; State of NC 28th Judicial District, General Court of Justice Criminal Court Division District and Superior Courts, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-20
Citations: 186 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 06-6435
Parties: Carl Edward WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris HESS, District Attorney; Calvin Hill, Public Defender; D.T. Sheehan, Officer # 2167, Asheville Police Department; T.J. Jones, Officer #2206, Asheville Police Department; State of NC 28th Judicial District, General Court of Justice Criminal Court Division District and Superior Courts, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
Carl Edward WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris HESS, District Attorney; Calvin Hill, Public Defender; D.T. Sheehan, Officer # 2167, Asheville Police Department; T.J. Jones, Officer #2206, Asheville Police Department; State of NC 28th Judicial District, General Court of Justice Criminal Court Division District and Superior Courts, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6435.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2006.
Decided: June 20, 2006.
Carl Edward Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis W. Euler, City Attorney’s Office, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carl Edward Wiley 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. Wiley v. North Carolina, No. l:06-cv-00038, 2006 WL 456491 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 2006). 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