UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1697

EDWARD F. HODGES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORMAN HUDSON, Chief, South Hill Police Department; EARL HORNE, Mayor, Town of South Hill; BILL ELKINS, Attorney at Law; TOWN OF SOUTH HILL; MILLIE BRACEY, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council members; JOHNNIE COOK, Member of the town Council, individually and in their capac- ity as council member; WILLIAM DOYLE, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; JIMMIE BUTTS, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; WILLIAM GREGORY, Member of the Town Council, individ- ually and in their capacity as council member; WOODROW KIDD, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; JOHNNIE CROWDER, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capacity as council member; LEROY SASSER, Member of the Town Council, individually and in their capac- ity as council member,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-01-74)

Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward P. Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Barrett Erskine Pope, Amy Jacqueline Inge, DURRETTE, IRVIN & BRADSHAW, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Edward F. Hodges appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his

(West Supp. 2001) complaint and

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the rec-

ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Hodges v. Hudson, No. CA-01-74 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4 & 20, 2001). 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

2