Charles E. Hinton v. Peter S. Gilchrist, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7161
CHARLES E. HINTON; RAKIM WALIYY SHAKUR;
FRANK ROBINSON, JR.; SHELDON COLLINS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
VANN SONG; KEVIN MCGILL; DAVID STANLEY; JOHNNY
L. BURRIS; TYMONE NELSON; DEMETRIUS DIXON;
CARLOS J. WEATHERS; DARRELL L. PERRY; JAMES H.
EVANS; BYRON L. JACKSON; KURTIS S. BENJAMIN;
LOREN HENDERSON,
Plaintiffs,
versus
PETER S. GILCHRIST, III; JANE DOE, Superior
Court Clerk; JOHN DOE, District Court Judge,
Court Room 1101, on 3/14/00; ISABEL SCOTT DAY,
Public Defender, District 26; KEVIN P. TULLY,
Assistant Public Defender; MARC S. GENTILE,
Assistant Public Defender; GAY R. ATKINS,
Attorney at Law, Assistant Public Defender;
ALICIA BROOKS, Attorney at Law, Assistant
Public Defender; SHARON JUMPER, Attorney at
Law, Assistant Public Defender; JEAN LAWSON,
Attorney at Law, Assistant Public Defender;
STEPHANIE JORDAN, Attorney at Law, Assistant
Public Defender; JOHN TOTTEN, Attorney at Law,
Assistant Public Defender; GREGORY L. WOODS,
Assistant Public Defender; JIM PENDERGRAPH,
Sheriff; HAAKON THORSEN, Attorney at Law,
Assistant Public Defender; CHARLES MORGAN,
JR., Attorney at Law, Assistant Public
Defender,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 4 --

2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-246-3-3-MU)
Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles E. Hinton, Rahim Waliyy Shakur, Frank Robinson, Jr.,
Sheldon Collins, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. 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 Hinton v. Gilchrist, No. CA-00-246-3-3-MU (E.D.N.C. July
7, 2000). Loren Henderson’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis
and for the appointment of counsel at the Government’s expense are
denied as moot. 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

-- 4 of 4 --