UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7801
ROBERT ALLEN SARTORI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
STANDLY HEARD; ADULA WALI, a/k/a Linwood Earl
Duffie; REGINALD OUTLAW; MELVIN HARRIS; LARRY
GARY, JR.; GREGORY GANT; NATHAM WEAVER,
Plaintiffs,
versus
ROY COOPER; ALL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN NORTH
CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-875-5-F)
Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Allen Sartori, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert Allen Sartori filed a civil action captioned under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2000). The district court concluded
Sartori’s claims sounded in habeas, dismissed Sartori’s claims
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2000), and instructed him to
particularize his complaint to comply with the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Sartori’s amended complaint failed to comply
with the district court’s instruction, and the district court
denied relief. Sartori moved for reconsideration. The district
court noted that Sartori “shows the court that his previous motion
to amend actually sought to amend the relief requested” and that
Sartori “argues that his claim should now be construed as a
discrimination suit under §§ 1981 and 1983, and not as a petition
for habeas corpus.” The district court nonetheless denied the
motion for reconsideration, holding that “[r]egardless, the
plaintiff’s claim will still be dismissed.” Sartori appeals from
the district court’s order and order on reconsideration denying
relief on his amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. See Sartori v. Cooper, No. CA-02-875-5-F
(E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 26, 2003; entered Sept. 29, 2003 & filed Oct.
23, 2003; entered Oct. 27, 2003). Accordingly, we affirm. 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