¶1 Arthur Lewis McElroy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * See McElroy v. Stanley, No. CA-98-877-5-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. July 24, 2001). 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED.
¶3 Assuming without deciding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 803 (co dified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc) may be applied retroactively to Appellant’s case, we find the Act affords him no basis for relief.