Filed: Dec. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7079 STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. T. CULLIGAN; J. W. BOOTH, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLOTTE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-64-3-2MU) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7079 STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. T. CULLIGAN; J. W. BOOTH, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLOTTE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-64-3-2MU) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7079 STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. T. CULLIGAN; J. W. BOOTH, Defendants - Appellees, and CHARLOTTE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-64-3-2MU) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 11, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Bayard Aycock, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephan D. Brooks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brooks v. Culligan, No. CA-99-64-3-2MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 21, 2000; entered June 27, 2000). 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 2
