UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6564
LAWRENCE L. HARRIS, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THERESA K. PRESSLEY, Defense Attorney; CHARLIE HUBBARD, Defense
Attorney; JASON CRUMP, Defense Attorney; BEN HOLLOMAN, Defense
Attorney; JOE BREWER, Former District Attorney; JAMES M. LONG,
District Attorney; ROGER ECHOLS, Assistant District Attorney;
LUANN WRIGHT MARTIN, Former Assistant District Attorney; HUGH
WILLAFORD, Assistant District Attorney; A. LEON STANBACK, State
of North Carolina Judge; W. OSMOND SMITH, III, State of North
Carolina Judge; DEPUTY CLERK UNREADABLE/UNKNOWN (FULL NAME),
Deputy Clerk of Court for Person County (Superior Court); KERRI
JEFFREY, Probation Officer; JAMES YANCEY, HAED Probation
Officer; MIKE EASLEY, Governor of North Carolina; BEVERLY EAVES
PERDUE, Governor of North Carolina; ROY A. COOPER, Attorney
General for North Carolina; ALVIN W. KELLER, JR., Secretary of
Correction for North Carolina; THOMAS J. BROWN, (Present Mayor)
Mayor of Roxboro, NC; FORMER MAYOR (UNKNOWN), Was Former Mayor
(2003) (2005); COUNTY COMMISSIONER/MANAGER (NAME UNKNOWN)
(PRESENT), County Commissioner/Manager (Present); COUNTY
COMMISSIONER/MANAGER (NAME UNKNOWN) (FORMER), Was Former County
Commissioner/Manager (2003) (2005),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine Caldwell
Eagles, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00412-CCE-PTS)
Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Lee Harris, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Lee Harris, II, appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and its
subsequent order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Pressley,
No. 1:10-cv-00412-CCE-PTS (M.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2011; Apr. 15,
2011). 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