Tommy Ray Combs v. Ashe County Health Department, a group of

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2586
TOMMY RAY COMBS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ASHE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, a group of
defendants consisting of Ashe County Health
Department; MARY ELIZABETH SMITH, M.D., former
director; CARL TUTTLE, present director; DAN-
IEL STALEY; WANDA ELLIOTT, Nurses’ Supervisor;
JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor; CHARLES D. REED,
State Pharmacist; H. DAVID BRUTON, M.D.,
Secretary of Department of Health and Human
Services of North Carolina; BETTY CHISLEY, De-
partment of Civil Rights Office of DHHS, Wash-
ington, D.C.; MARIE CHRETIEN, Department of
Civil Rights Office of DHHS, Washington, D.C.;
RICHARD BURR, Congressman; KATY B MANSHIP,
Aid; JOHN MARSH, Ashe County Commissioners;
LEE MCMILLAN, Ashe County Commissioner; LARRY
RHODES, Ashe County Commissioner; DWIGHT
SHEPHERD, Ashe County Commissioner; RICHARD
CALHOUN, Ashe County Commissioner; LEGAL
SERVICES OF THE BLUE RIDGE; LAURA DAVIS,
Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-00-100-5-V)
Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 27, 2001

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Ray Combs, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Ray Combs appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil action as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and as
barred by res judicata. We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommen-
dation to dismiss the complaint and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Combs v. Ashe County Health Dep’t, No. CA-00-100-5-V (W.D.N.C. Nov.
13, 2000). We further deny Comb’s motion for the appointment of
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

-- 2 of 2 --