113 F.3d 1231 (4th Cir. 1997), 96-1194, Cheatham v. Williams

• Citation: 113 F.3d 1231
• Party Name: Adam Troy CHEATHAM, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. John M. WILLIAMS, Former Assistant Superinten dent/Programs Hoke Correctional Institution, individually and in his official capacity; G. Wayne Spears, Former Superintendent for Hoke Correctional Institute, individually and in his former official capacity; Aaron Johnson, Former Secretary of the Department
• Case Date: May 28, 1997
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1231

113 F.3d 1231 (4th Cir. 1997)

Adam Troy CHEATHAM, Plaintiff--Appellant,

v.

John M. WILLIAMS, Former Assistant Superinten dent/Programs Hoke Correctional Institution, individually and in his official capacity; G. Wayne Spears, Former Superintendent for Hoke Correctional Institute, individually and in his former official capacity; Aaron Johnson, Former Secretary of the Department of Corrections, individually and in his former official capacity; Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Secretary of Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-1194.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

May 28, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted May 15, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-235-5-D)

Adam Troy Cheatham, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie L. Bateman, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint after this court's remand in Cheatham v. Williams, No. 94-2605 (4th Cir. Apr. 18, 1995) (unpublished). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Cheatham v. Williams, No. CA-93-235-5-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 1996). We further deny Appellant's "Motion to Dismiss Disposition." 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.

DISMISSED.