Browning v. Harper , 82 F. App'x 852 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7005
    THOMAS WILLIAM BROWNING,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    STEVE HARPER, Metropolitan Drug Enforcement
    Network Team Police Officer; M.K. CRUICKSHANK,
    Senior Trooper,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    KANAWHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; D.G.
    PAINTER, Resources Officer; WEST VIRGINIA
    STATE POLICE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; COUNTY
    OF KANAWHA,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
    District Judge. (CA-00-619-2)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 19, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas William Browning, Appellant Pro Se. Theresa Marlene Kirk,
    PULLIN, FOWLER & FLANAGAN, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia;
    Michael Deering Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas William Browning appeals the district court judgment
    and order entering judgment in favor of the defendants.   Browning
    filed a complaint alleging excessive force by two law enforcement
    officials during an arrest. After a bench trial, the district court
    dismissed one defendant as a matter of law and the other defendant
    on the facts.   We affirm.
    We find the district court did not abuse its discretion
    denying the motion for production of transcripts at government
    expense.   Insofar as Browning claims his counsel was ineffective,
    the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel does
    not apply in civil cases. Sanchez v. United States Postal Service,
    
    785 F.2d 1236
    , 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.      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: 03-7005

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 852

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/19/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024