Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Towne v. Ward, 00-2345 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2345 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 21, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2345 ROBIN JAMES TOWNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRYAN C. WARD, individually; GUNTHER M. HINZ, individually; JOHN M. FITZGERALD, individ- ually, Defendants - Appellees, and TOWN OF MOOREFIELD, a municipal corporation, and Department of Public Safety; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Irene
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2345 ROBIN JAMES TOWNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRYAN C. WARD, individually; GUNTHER M. HINZ, individually; JOHN M. FITZGERALD, individ- ually, Defendants - Appellees, and TOWN OF MOOREFIELD, a municipal corporation, and Department of Public Safety; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Elkins. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-40-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lary D. Garrett, GARRETT & GARRETT, Moorefield, West Virginia; Clyde M. See, Jr., SEE & DOWNING, Moorefield, West Virginia, for Appellant. Amy Marie Smith, Michael Kozakewich, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Daniel A. Ruley, Jr., MORRIS & RULEY, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robin James Towne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000), and West Virginia state law. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Towne v. Ward, No. CA-99-40-2 (N.D.W. Va. July 28, 2000). We dis- pense 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer