Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sullivan v. County of Pender, 06-1497 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1497 Visitors: 36
Filed: Dec. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1497 DONALD SULLIVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARSON SMITH, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Pender County, North Carolina; MAJOR KEITH D. HINKLE; CAPTAIN MARK SLOAN, individually and in their capacities as officers of the Sheriff’s Department of Pender County, North Carolina; DEPUTY E. S. WYRICK, JR.; DEPUTY REED; DEPUTY GONZALES; JOE DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE III; JANE DOE, individually and in the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1497 DONALD SULLIVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARSON SMITH, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Pender County, North Carolina; MAJOR KEITH D. HINKLE; CAPTAIN MARK SLOAN, individually and in their capacities as officers of the Sheriff’s Department of Pender County, North Carolina; DEPUTY E. S. WYRICK, JR.; DEPUTY REED; DEPUTY GONZALES; JOE DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE III; JANE DOE, individually and in their capacities as deputies in the Sheriff’s Department of Pender County, North Carolina; COUNTY OF PENDER; MAGISTRATE DELORES R. HELMS, individually and in her capacity as an officer of the court for the Fifth Judicial District of North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:04-cv-00026-FL) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. James Redfern Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald Sullivan appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sullivan v. Smith, No. 7:04-cv-00026-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2006). 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 -
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