Hinton v. Reavis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Hinton v. Reavis

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6967

HENDERSON L. HINTON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CHARLES REAVIS; MAC MANNING, Sheriff; JERRY LEGGETT; WILLIAM JOHNSON; ALEX HOLMAN, Deputy; MARK MCCLISH, Deputy; JEFF FRAZIER, Sheriff; CHARLIE HASTY, JR., Lieutenant; BOBBY MARTIN, JR., Lieutenant,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

GEORGE EDWARD BELL HOLDING; JOHN HOWARTH BENNETT; DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff; ALLEN MOORE, Administrator; CAPTAIN WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT ALFORD; SERGEANT CHAMPION; SERGEANT LUCAS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-ct-03057-D)

Submitted: January 31, 2011 Decided: February 14, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson L. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina; William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER, FRANKLIN, HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Henderson L. Hinton appeals the district court’s

judgment dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2006) and Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388

(1971) action against Defendants and has moved for

appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hinton’s motion for

appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment.

See Hinton v. Reavis, No. 5:07-ct-03057-D (E.D.N.C. May 25,

2010). 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished