Hinton v. Reavis

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6967 HENDERSON L. HINTON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLES REAVIS; MAC MANNING, Sheriff; JERRY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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Henderson L. Hinton appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named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