
    Michael A. ALLEN, Jr.; Sheila Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. George GILLENWATER; Jeremy Jones; D.E. Young; Det. Tunstall; William Kelly; G.A. Harris; Robert Voorhees, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-2121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 22, 2013.
    Decided: March 28, 2013.
    Michael A. Allen, Jr., Sheila Jones, Appellants Pro Se. Kari Russwurm Johnson, Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment on their Fourth Amendment claims raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Appellant Allen’s state law defamation claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Gillenwater, No. l:10-cv-00359-CCE-JEP, 2012 WL 3475583 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2012). We deny Appellants’ motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Although Appellants allege that Appellees improperly withheld discovery materials from them, we find no basis in the record to support this assertion. Insofar as Appellants seek to introduce new documents and request previously-unavailable records from a criminal case, we must decline to consider these materials. See Fed. R.App. P. 10 (defining "record on appeal” and grounds for supplementation): United States v. Husein, 478 F.3d 318, 335-36 (6th Cir.2007) (recognizing that supplementation of record is intended to "correct omissions from or misstatements in the record for appeal, not to introduce new evidence in the court of appeals”).
     