Hinton v. Reavis
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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- Unpublished