UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7559

NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TRACY SMITH, Officer; GLEN W. GRAHAM, Officer; ANTONIOVILLALOBOS, Officer; Individually and in Their OfficialCapacities; LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXCESS LIABILITY FUND, INCORPORATED OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SHERIFF B. J. BARNES,

Defendant.

No. 07-7682

NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRACY SMITH, Officer; ANTONIO VILLALOBOS, Officer; LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXCESS LIABILITY FUND, INCORPORATED OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA; GLEN W. GRAHAM, Officer,

Defendants - Appellants, and

B. J. BARNES,

Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cv-00434-WLO-PTS)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant/Appellee Pro Se. James Antone Dickens, Jr., COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; Matthew L. Mason, GUILFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees/Appellants.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

In appeal number 07-7559, Nathaniel Dante Rice appeals

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his

(2000)

complaint and its order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Rice v. Smith, No.

1:05-cv-00434-WLO-PTS (M.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2007; Oct. 29, 2007). We

deny Rice’s motions for appointment of counsel.

In appeal number 07-7682, defendants below appeal the

district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order

denying their motion to strike certain documents filed by Rice. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Rice’s motion for 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 -