CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. SMITH, III, individually and as agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company; MARTHA SMITH, individually and as agent for Charles L. Smith, III; DAVIDSON AND JONES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; CITY OF RALEIGH, North Carolina; CITY COUNCIL OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA; NORMA D. BURNS; MARY CATES; GEOFFREY ELTING; ANNE FRANKLIN; CHARLES MEEKER; MARY W. NOOE, individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor; AVERY C. UPCHURCH, individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor, Defendants - Appellees. CELESTE G. BROUGHTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. SMITH, III, individually and as agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company; MARTHA SMITH, individually and as agent for Charles L. Smith, III; DAVIDSON AND JONES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; CITY OF RALEIGH, North Carolina; CITY COUNCIL OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA; NORMA D. BURNS; MARY CATES; GEOFFREY ELTING; ANNE FRANKLIN; CHARLES MEEKER; MARY W. NOOE, individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor; AVERY C. UPCHURCH, individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor, Defendants - Appellees. 
No. 93-2150, No. 93-2381
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 8072

February 16, 1994, Submitted  
April 20, 1994, Decided

NOTICE: [*1]   RULES OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT. 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported in Table Case Format at: 21 F.3d 421, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15931. Certiorari Denied December 5, 1994, Reported at: 1994 U.S. LEXIS 8735.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-90-193-5-BR). 

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

COUNSEL: Celeste G. Broughton, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt Eric Linquist, II, LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael Terry Medford, MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, Raleigh, North Carolina; Thomas Alexander McCormick, Jr., City Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 

JUDGES: Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. 
OPINION BY: PER CURIAM

OPINION:
PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court`s orders granting summary judgment for all the Defendants, and denying Plaintiff`s motions for new trial or reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, 59, and 60. Our review of the record and the district court`s opinions discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Broughton v. Smith, No. CA-90-193-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1993; Sept. 28, 1993). We deny Appellant`s motion to stay decision pending [*2]  the district court`s action on a post-judgment motion. 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