Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DeTemple v. Paugh, 02-2122 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2122 Visitors: 65
Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2122 GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE PAUGH, Chief of Police; PATRICK DACEY, Officer; MARK D. PANEPINTO; MR. WEEKLEY, Locksmith; ARTHUR MCKENZIE, Mayor of Bethlehem; VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM, A municipal Corporation, West Virginia; JOSEPH ROXBY, Officer; DWAYNE DAVIS, Individual, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Officer, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2122 GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE PAUGH, Chief of Police; PATRICK DACEY, Officer; MARK D. PANEPINTO; MR. WEEKLEY, Locksmith; ARTHUR MCKENZIE, Mayor of Bethlehem; VILLAGE OF BETHLEHEM, A municipal Corporation, West Virginia; JOSEPH ROXBY, Officer; DWAYNE DAVIS, Individual, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, Officer, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-126-5) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gary L. DeTemple appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See DeTemple v. Paugh, No. CA-01-126-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 8, 2002; July 26, 2002). 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
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