UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ANGELO MULDROW,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CURT BROWN; LAKE CITY POLICE  No. 00-6787 DEPARTMENT; JIMMY WILSON, Captain; EVELYN COLDTRAIN, Det.; CALVIN T. SMITH, Ofc., Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-3580-9-18RB)

Submitted: October 31, 2000

Decided: November 21, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Angelo Muldrow, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Thomas King, WILL- COX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. 2 MULDROW v. BROWN Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Muldrow appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his

(West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Muldrow v. Brown, No. CA-97-3580-9-18RB (D.S.C. May 24, 2000). The district court analyzed Muldrow’s claim concerning the allegedly forged confession under the Fifth Amendment. As Mul- drow correctly notes on appeal, the Fifth Amendment is not impli- cated because he claims that the confession is false and that, consequently, he did not incriminate himself. Nevertheless, summary judgment in favor of Defendants was appropriate because Muldrow’s claim that Defendants forged his signature on a false confession is more akin to a strictly state law malicious prosecution claim and, as such, is not cognizable under § 1983. See Lambert v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 2000). 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