3:08-cv-00192-FDW) Alfred T. Thomas v. United States of America

FILED: January 26, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 08-1724
(3:08-cv-00192-FDW)
___________________
Alfred T. Thomas,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PETER GILCREST; NATHANIEL P. PROCTOR;
YVONNE MIMS-EVANS; THOMAS C. PORTER; HELMS, MULLIS & WICKER
PLLC,
Defendants – Appellees
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
Appellant has filed a renewed request to correct the case
caption to use his full name rather than initials, in accordance
with the captioning of the case in the district court. The
Court grants the motion and re-captions this case as it was
captioned in the district court.
The caption and party sections on the first page of the
opinion are amended to identify the appellant by name. The
references to appellant in the second and sixth lines on the

-- 1 of 4 --

second page of the opinion are amended to identify the appellant
by name.
For the Court--By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

-- 2 of 4 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1724
Alfred T. Thomas,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PETER GILCREST; NATHANIEL P.
PROCTOR; YVONNE MIMS-EVANS; THOMAS C. PORTER; HELMS, MULLIS
& WICKER PLLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:08-cv-00192-FDW)
Submitted: November 10, 2008 Decided: December 9, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfred T. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 3 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alfred T. Thomas appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Thomas v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-00192-FDW
(W.D.N.C. May 1, 2008). 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 --