Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Borowski v. Polinske, 10-2107 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-2107 Visitors: 28
Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2107 MATTHEW BOROWSKI; CARIANNE BOROWSKI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. TERESA POLINSKE, in her official and individual capacities; STEVEN D. EPPLE, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00197-AJT-JFA) Submitted: February 18, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Befo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2107 MATTHEW BOROWSKI; CARIANNE BOROWSKI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. TERESA POLINSKE, in her official and individual capacities; STEVEN D. EPPLE, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00197-AJT-JFA) Submitted: February 18, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Borowski, Carianne Borowski, Appellants Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, COOK, KITTS & FRANCUZENKO, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew and Carianne Borowski appeal a district court’s order granting Detective Stephen D. Epple’s and Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Teresa Polinske’s motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Borowski v. Polinske, No. 1:10-cv-00197-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 24, 2010; entered Aug. 25, 2010). We deny the Borowskis’ motion for 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