UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1709
HAYWOOD CLAYTON, d/b/a ICMM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ALGIE STEPHENS; WOODROW D. WILLIAMS; LARRY
VICK; TIMOTHY GUNTHER; TANNER AND ROGEL, P.A.;
S&H TRAILERS, INCORPORATED; MELVIN STANCIL;
GLENN DUNN; POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP; JUDITH R.
BULLOCK; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES; MICHAEL WILLFORD;
SOUTHCHEM, INCORPORATED; JOE COLLIE, as exec-
utive officer of SouthChem and individually;
GIL STEADMAN; SEAN CALLINICOS; MAUPIN, TAYLOR,
ELLIS & ADAMS; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 97-2222
HAYWOOD CLAYTON, d/b/a ICMM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ALGIE STEPHENS; WOODROW D. WILLIAMS; LARRY
VICK; TIMOTHY GUNTHER; TANNER AND ROGEL, P.A.;
S&H TRAILERS, INCORPORATED; MELVIN STANCIL;
GLENN DUNN; POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP; JUDITH R.
BULLOCK; DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES; MICHAEL WILLFORD;
SOUTHCHEM, INCORPORATED; JOE COLLIE, as exec-
utive officer of SouthChem and individually;
GIL STEADMAN; SEAN CALLINICOS; MAUPIN, TAYLOR,
ELLIS & ADAMS; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-96-518-5-BR)
Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: May 5, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Haywood Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Odes Lawrence Stroupe, Jr.,
BODE, CALL & STROUPE, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark
Anderson Finkelstein, THE SANFORD HOLSHOUSER LAW FIRM, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Grayson Lawrence Reeves, Jr., PATTERSON, DILTHEY,
CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina; LeAnn M. Tanner, RHODES &
ROGEL, P.A., Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina; Terry Richard Kane,
POYNER & SPRUILL, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Roy Blackwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S.
Parsons, John McKinley Kirby, II, BAILEY & DIXON, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 97-1709, Haywood Clayton appeals the district court's
order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his federal
claims, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 (West 1984 & Supp. 1998), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 6972 (1994), and declining to exercise jurisdiction over
his pendant state law claims, see Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650-
52 (4th Cir. 1988). Clayton also appeals the district court's
denial of his motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary
judgment. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district
court's orders and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clayton v.
Stephens, No. CA-96-518-BR (E.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 1996; Feb. 11, 1997).
In No. 97-2222, Clayton appeals the district court's order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the imposition of a
sanction, specifically a prefiling review order pertaining to any
future action filed by Clayton against the Defendants raising the
claims involved in this action. Our review of the record and the
district court's orders reveals no abuse of discretion. According-
ly, we affirm the denial of the motion for reconsideration. See
National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th
Cir. 1995).
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3