Thomas v. Hall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 13, 2005
• Docket: 04-2102
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2102

ALBERT THOMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SCOTT HALL, Officer, in his individual and official capacity as a police officer of Roanoke Rapids Police Department; HAROLD PHILLIPS, Officer, in his individual and official capacity as a police officer of Roanoke Rapids Police Department; BO FORSHT, Officer, in his individual and official capacity as a police officer of Roanoke Rapids Police Department; JAMAL BRYANT, Officer, in his individual and official capacity as a police officer of Roanoke Rapids Police Department; DAVID BROWN, Officer, in his individual and official capacity as a police officer of Roanoke Rapids Police Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-28-40-H)

Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Albert Thomas, Jr. appeals the district court’s order

awarding summary judgment to defendants and dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Thomas v. Hall, No. CA-03-28-40-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2004). We

grant Thomas’s motion to supplement his informal brief and deny his

motion to appoint appellate counsel. 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 -