Clark v. Oakes

Filed: October 3, 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6182
(CA-99-431-7)
Jerome Clark,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
John D. Oakes, etc., et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 23, 2002, as
follows:
On page 2, section 1 -- counsel for appellees is corrected to
read “William Michael Hackworth, City Attorney, William X. Parsons,
Assistant City Attorney, Elizabeth Kay Dillon, CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.”
On page 3, footnote * -- the references to “Oakes” are
corrected to read “Clark.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6182
JEROME CLARK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN D. OAKES, Roanoke City Police Officer;
JOHN DOE 1, Roanoke City Police Officer; JOHN
DOE 2, Roanoke City Police Officer; JOHN DOE
3, Roanoke City Police Officer; JANE DOE 1,
Nurse, Roanoke City Jail,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ROANOKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-00-431-7)
Submitted: August 27, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Clark, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Hackworth, City
Attorney, William X. Parsons, Assistant City Attorney, Elizabeth
Kay Dillon, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
4
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Clark appeals a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983(West Supp. 2002) action against Roanoke City police officer John
D. Oakes and other unnamed police officers.* This court may reverse
a jury verdict only when there is a complete absence of probative
facts to support the conclusions reached by the jury. Sherrill
White Constr., Inc. v. S.C. Nat’l Bank, 713 F.2d 1047, 1050 (4th
Cir. 1983). We find probative facts to support the conclusions
reached by the jury. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s verdict.
We deny Clark’s motion “to serve Officers Oakes and Hurley with
perjury charges” and his motion to authorize preparation of
transcript at government expense. 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
*
On appeal, Clark does not contest the district court’s
dismissal of the other defendants from this action. With respect
to the unnamed officers, despite warning by the district court that
failure to amend the complaint with the identities of these
officers would result in dismissal against the unnamed officers,
Clark failed to do so.
5