UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7569

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NOLAN B. JONES, Chairman of Board of Commis- sioners; CHARLES BATTLE, JR., Commissioner; LESLIE D. STRAYHORN, Commissioner; SONDRA RIGGS, Commissioner; REYNOLDS MASON, Sheriff; TIM MORTON, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY; BILLY W. WHITE; HORACE PHILLIPS, Member of Commis- sioners; JONES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7754

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NOLAN B. JONES, Chairman of Board of Commis- sioners; CHARLES BATTLE, JR., Commissioner; LESLIE D. STRAYHORN, Commissioner; SONDRA RIGGS, Commissioner; REYNOLDS MASON, Sheriff; TIM MORTON, Deputy; UNKNOWN DEPUTY; BILLY W. WHITE; HORACE PHILLIPS, Member of Commis- sioners; JONES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-76)

Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Scott Pierce, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his

(1994) complaint and order retaining the rec-

ord in the district court. We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. The

claims Willis raises do not meet the constitutional standards re- quired to state a claim under

(1994). The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Willis's motions to

amend the caption and complaint. The district court properly

retained the record while motions in the case were still pending. We deny Willis's motions for oral argument. 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

3