
    Donald E. DAVIS, d/b/a Don’s Auto Service, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS; Don Mi-zelle, in his official capacity and individually; Richard Self, in his capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Holly Springs; Gerald Holleman, in his capacity as Mayor for the Town of Holly Springs, and individually; Peter Bine, in his capacity as Interim Code Enforcement Planner for the Town of Holly Springs, and individually; Wallace Ponder, Individually; John T. McLean, Individually; Debra A. Collins, Individually; Cynthia Gibbons, Individually; Kevin J. Romanchok, Individually; James E. Cobb, Individually, Defendants-Appellees. Donald E. Davis, d/b/a Don’s Auto Service, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Town of Holly Springs; Don Mizelle, in his official capacity and individually; Richard Self, in his capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Holly Springs; Gerald Holleman, in his capacity as Mayor for the Town of Holly Springs, and individually; Peter Bine, in his capacity as Interim Code Enforcement Planner for the Town of Holly Springs, and individually; Wallace Ponder, Individually; John L. McLean, Individually; Debra A. Collins, Individually; Cynthia Gibbons, Individually; Kevin J. Romanchok, Individually; James E. Cobb, Individually, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 01-1603, 01-1673.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 25, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 10, 2001.
    Donald E. Davis, pro se. Daniel Gerald Cahill, The Sanford Holshouser Law Firm, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Donald E. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Defendants cross appeal the denial of their motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. Town of Holly Springs, No. CA-00-368-5 BE (E.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 2001). In addition, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions. Thus, we affirm that order as well. 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.  