UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (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