Greg Givens v. Officer Zimmerman ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2015
GREG P. GIVENS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, individually and collectively,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SCOTT R. SMITH, individually and collectively; KEITH C.
GAMBLE, individually and collectively; STEPHEN MARK FOWLER,
individually and collectively; DAVID LUKE FURBEE,
individually and collectively; OFFICER D. L. ROBINSON,
individually and collectively; COUNTY OF OHIO, West
Virginia, individually and collectively; HONORABLE JAMES P.
MAZZONE, individually and collectively; HONORABLE ARTHUR M.
RECHT, individually and collectively; HONORABLE RONALD E.
WILSON, individually and collectively; KENNETH W. BLAKE,
individually and collectively; JULIE L. KREEFER,
individually and collectively; TONI VANCAMP, individually
and collectively; THE STATE JOURNAL, individually and
collectively; SUSAN HAMRICK, individually and collectively,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00155-FPS-JES)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Greg P. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Deva A. Solomon, STEPTOE &
JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Greg P. Givens seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Givens v.
Zimmerman, No. 5:12-cv-00155-FPS-JES (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 27, 2014).
We deny all of Givens’ pending motions, including his motions
for sanctions, to strike, for consideration of additional
issues, and for a hearing. 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.
DISMISSED
3