Court Opinion

ID: 1006389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:10:33.361882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:31.156922
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-7364

KARIM ABDUL AKBAR,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

LIEUTENANT MCKINNEY; SERGEANT RASCOE; G. L.
HENRY, Sergeant; J. HAYNES, Warden,

                                             Defendants - Appellees,
          and

OFFICER BOWMAN,

                                                           Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-496)

Submitted:   December 20, 2001            Decided:   January 14, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karim Abdul Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.      John Payne Scherer, II,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

     Karim Abdul Akbar appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.    We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error.    Accordingly, we deny Akbar’s motion for appointment of

counsel and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district

court.*   Akbar v. McKinney, No. CA-99-496 (M.D.N.C. July 20, 2001).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           AFFIRMED

     *
      To the extent Akbar alleges a due process violation, we note
Akbar had an adequate post-deprivation remedy.      See Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).

                                  2