Jean-Claude Rinehart v. Theodis Beck

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint counsel [998547739-2] Originating case number: 5:09-ct-03019-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998644218]. Mailed to: Jean-Claude Rinehart. [11-1074]

Appeal: 11-1074

Document: 18

Date Filed: 08/01/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1074

JEAN-CLAUDE RINEHART,
Plaintiff ─ Appellant,
v.
THEODIS BECK; BOYD BENNETT;
HUNSUCKER; JOHN GODFREY; J.
MR. WALN; MS. HARWOOD; TWO
PAULA SMITH; ALVIN KELLER;
BILLIE S. MARTIN,

JAMES PIERCE; LEWIS SMITH; JAMES
KELLY; T. HILDRETH; MR. CARLISS;
UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM WORKERS; DR.
DEBRA B. MORRIS; MS. BARRINGER;

Defendants ─ Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03019-D)

Submitted:

July 28, 2011

Decided:

August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jean-Claude Rinehart, Appellant Pro Se.
Oliver Gray Wheeler,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1074

Document: 18

Date Filed: 08/01/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jean-Claude

Rinehart

appeals

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Rinehart v. Beck, No. 5:09-ct-03019-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5,

2011).

We further deny Rinehart’s motion for appointment of

counsel.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2