UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1015

ALFRED LOCKLEAR; GWEN D. LOCKLEAR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF HOKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; L. E. MCLAUGHLIN, personally; TOM HOWELL, personally; RILEY JORDAN, personally; DUNCAN MCFADYEN, former Hoke County Attorney; JAMES C. SPENCER, JR., the Honorable; JERRI DUNSTON, Attorney, United States Department of Justice; SARA MCDONALD, personally; DAVID GIBSON, personally, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1277-1)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Locklear, Gwen D. Locklear, Appellants Pro Se. Tyrus Vance Dahl, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Charles Jerome Murray, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Lawrence Pierce Egerton, EGERTON & ASSOCIATES, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Alfred and Gwen Locklear appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their civil action raising claims under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Locklear v. Board of Commissioners, No. CA-97- 1277-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 1998). We deny the Locklears’ motion to appoint counsel and 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