Raymond Griffin v. Deborah Shandle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999899444-2] Originating case number: 5:15-ct-03145-D Copies to all parties and the district court. [999975600]. Mailed to: Raymond Griffin. [16-6945]

Appeal: 16-6945

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6945

RAYMOND GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEBORAH SHANDLES, Assistant District Attorney; DONALD C.
PATE, Trooper – NC State Highway Patrol; T. MCELROY,
Detective – Raleigh Police Department; S. JOHNSON, Raleigh
Police Officer; C. PIERCE, Raleigh Police Officer; D.
HARPER, Raleigh Police Officer; DONNIE HARRISON, Wake County
Sheriff; CHARLES CALDWELL, NC Public Defender; CHRISTY
HIGHSMITH, Assistant Public Defender; JOURNALIST AND MEDIA;
JOHN AND JANE DOE; DETECTIVE MCKEON, Raleigh Police
Department,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03145-D)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

November 28, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-6945

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6945

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raymond

Griffin

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after
a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012) review, Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012)

action,

motion.

and

denying

Griffin’s

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

59(e)

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error.

Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s motion for appointment of

counsel and affirm the district court’s orders.

See Griffin v.

Shandles, No. 5:15-ct-03145-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 2016; May 18,
2016).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3