McLean v. Stieneke

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7784

MICHAEL MCLEAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL L. STIENEKE; JAMES FRENCH; RANDALL LEE; JAMES SMITH, Doctor; OFFICER PHILMON; OFFICER PITTMAN; OFFICER PULLEN; OFFICER ROOKS; OFFICER BRODY; OFFICER DANIELS; OFFICER PEARS; OFFICER PETERSON; OFFICER INGRAM; OFFICER PULLEN; OFFICER HARRIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-05-222-5-H)

Submitted: May 3, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael McLean, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Michael McLean appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motions to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See McLean v. Stieneke, No.

CA-05-222-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2005; filed Oct. 7, 2005 & entered

Oct. 24, 2005). 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

- 2 -