Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vandyke v. O'Donell, 06-7454 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-7454 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7454 DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER O’DONELL, (female) at Rutherford County Detention Center; J. R. DAVIS, Police Officer at Forest City Police Department; JAMES FISH, Lieutenant at Rutherford County Detention Center; KAY YOUNG, Sergeant at Rutherford County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees, and DAN GOOD, Sheriff of Rutherford County, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Cou
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7454 DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER O’DONELL, (female) at Rutherford County Detention Center; J. R. DAVIS, Police Officer at Forest City Police Department; JAMES FISH, Lieutenant at Rutherford County Detention Center; KAY YOUNG, Sergeant at Rutherford County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees, and DAN GOOD, Sheriff of Rutherford County, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-00357) Submitted: February 26, 2007 Decided: March 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Roger Vandyke, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Douglas MacLatchie, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; James Demarest Secor, III, William L. Hill, FRAZIER, FRANKLIN, HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Dennis Roger Vandyke 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 on the reasoning of the district court. See Vandyke v. O’Donell, No. 1:05-cv-00357 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 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