UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2150
CHARLES T. SHERWIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PAT PINER; HAROLD MAYNARD; SUSAN BRIGGS;
STEPHEN KUSHNER; KIMBERLY LEDFORD; GEORGE
GLENN, II; STEVEN GHEEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-275-5-H)
Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles T. Sherwin, Appellant Pro Se. Zebulon Dyer Anderson,
SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh,
North Carolina; John Francis Morris, MORRIS, YORK, WILLIAMS, SURLES
& BARRINGER, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Joseph C. Moore,
III, ALLEN & MOORE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Giles Meacham,
Jr., William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH
CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Myra Leake Griffin, NORTH
CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Charles T. Sherwin appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the
judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error
and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court, see Sherwin v. Piner, No. CA-03-
275-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed July 21, 2003; entered July 22, 2003 &
filed Aug. 11, 2003; entered Aug. 12, 2003), and we deny Sherwin’s
motion for remand. 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 -