UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TERRY LEA BUNCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS;
VERA BENNETT; RUBY BAKER; GREG
BAKER; PHYLLIS ALFORD; HAZEL
                                                               No. 96-7089
KEITH; GEORGE ERWIN; EDDIE PRUITT;
PAT SUMMEY; JOE LOFTIS; PATRICIA
FUQUA; LEONA OWENS; JAMES PIERCE,
III; MARCUS JIMISON, in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-95-978-5-H)

Submitted: December 17, 1996

Decided: December 27, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terry Lea Bunch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Terry Bunch appeals the district court's order denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Bunch's appeal was not filed
within thirty days of the district court's judgment order dismissing his
complaint, but was filed within thirty days of the court's order deny-
ing Bunch's motion to alter the court's judgment. Moreover, although
Bunch described his motion as a Rule 59(e) motion it is properly con-
strued as a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), because it was
not filed within ten days of the court's original judgment. See In re
Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). Bunch's appeal is therefore
timely only as to the order denying his motion, see Fed. R. App. 4,
and our jurisdiction is limited to review of the district court's order
denying Bunch's motion. Burnley, 988 F.2d at 3.

Bunch's motion alleged that the district court's original order failed
to address his claims with respect to a particular Defendant. In deny-
ing the motion, the district court explained that its decision held that
Bunch suffered no violation of his constitutional rights, which effec-
tively precluded liability on the part of every Defendant in this action.
Moreover, the court concluded that Bunch's claims as to the remain-
ing Defendant were speculative.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Bunch's motion. See NOW v. Opera-
tion Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). Bunch's motion raised
no new legal issues and the arguments asserted in his motion were
both conclusory and speculative. Accordingly, although we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Bunch's motion for
appointment of counsel and affirm the order of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2
