Fernando Palma Carias v. Donnie Harrison , 705 F. App'x 181 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6490
FERNANDO PALMA CARIAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff; E. A. BLOMGREN, Investigator; JAMES
MICHAEL CORNAIRE, Deputy Sheriff; DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
DIRECTOR; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR; CHRISTOPHER BRANT; TOM
HALVAS; ERIC HOLDER; UNIDENTIFIED INDEMNITOR FOR WAKE
COUNTY; WILLIAM ATWELL; LANCE ANTHONY; MICHAEL WILLIAMS;
D. TAYLOR; K. MANNING,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Party-in-Interest - Appellee,
and
DWIGHT YOKUM; NARDINE MARY GUIRGUIS; DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03264-FL; 5:14-ct-3104-FL)
Submitted: November 20, 2017 Decided: December 4, 2017
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fernando Palma Carias, Appellant Pro Se. Roger Allen Askew, John Albert Maxfield,
Virginia Claire Tharrington, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert Edward Nunley, NUNLEY &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Walter A. Schmidlin, III, STEWART &
SCHMIDLIN, PLLC, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Fernando Palma Carias appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his
claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2012); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (2012); the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012); and
provisions of North Carolina state law.
We have reviewed the record in light of Carias’ arguments on appeal and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *
Carias v. Harrison, Nos. 5:13-ct-03264-FL; 5:14-ct-3104-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2016 &
Mar. 27, 2017). We deny Carias’ motion for a transcript at government expense. 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
*
As to Carias’ Fourth Amendment claims regarding surveillance equipment in his
vehicle, we conclude that Carias’ self-serving statements are insufficient to create genuine
issues of material fact that must be submitted to the jury.
3