UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6933
ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JEFFERY RAY ADDY; MUSA BANSHEE,
Plaintiffs,
versus
J. BRYANT DIEHL; TOP REPUBLIC TOBACCO,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 00-6936
JEFFERY RAY ADDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY; MUSA BANSHEE,
Plaintiffs,
versus
J. BRYANT DIEHL; TOP REPUBLIC TOBACCO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-3125-3-18BC)
Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Eugene Slappy, Jeffery Ray Addy, Appellants Pro Se. Terry B.
Millar, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Thomas Frank Dougall, Jeffrey L.
Shaw, BOWERS, ORR & DOUGALL, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Eugene Slappy (No. 00-6933) and Jeffery Ray Addy (No.
00-6936) separately appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint and
the district court’s orders denying their separately filed motions
to alter or amend. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
find no reversible error in the denial of relief on the § 1983
complaint. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Slappy v. Diehl, No. CA-99-3125-3-18BC; Addy v. Diehl,
No. CA-99-3125-3-18BC (D.S.C. May 18, 2000). Because we find no
abuse of discretion, we further affirm the district court’s denial
of Appellants’ motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’r, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir.
1991). 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. We deny
Appellants’ motions for appointment of counsel.
AFFIRMED
3