Sullivan v. County of Pender ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1497
    DONALD SULLIVAN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CARSON SMITH, individually and in his capacity
    as Sheriff of Pender County, North Carolina;
    MAJOR KEITH D. HINKLE; CAPTAIN MARK SLOAN,
    individually and in their capacities as
    officers of the Sheriff’s Department of Pender
    County, North Carolina; DEPUTY E. S. WYRICK,
    JR.; DEPUTY REED; DEPUTY GONZALES; JOE DOE, I;
    JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE III; JANE DOE,
    individually and in their capacities as
    deputies in the Sheriff’s Department of Pender
    County, North Carolina; COUNTY OF PENDER;
    MAGISTRATE DELORES R. HELMS, individually and
    in her capacity as an officer of the court for
    the Fifth Judicial District of North Carolina,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (7:04-cv-00026-FL)
    Submitted: December 21, 2006              Decided:   December 28, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.    James Redfern Morgan, Jr.,
    WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina; David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant Attorney General,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald   Sullivan   appeals   the   district    court’s   order
    denying relief on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint.        We have
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.        Accordingly, we
    affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.        Sullivan v.
    Smith, No. 7:04-cv-00026-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2006).        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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1497

Filed Date: 12/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014