Filed: Jan. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7369 DAVID ALLEN MCCLURE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL H. CARLSON, Officer, Badge #1122; KEVIN J. SULLIVAN, Officer, Badge #1393; AUDREY MELBOURNE, Honorable Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-96- 163-PJM) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7369 DAVID ALLEN MCCLURE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL H. CARLSON, Officer, Badge #1122; KEVIN J. SULLIVAN, Officer, Badge #1393; AUDREY MELBOURNE, Honorable Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-96- 163-PJM) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7369 DAVID ALLEN MCCLURE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL H. CARLSON, Officer, Badge #1122; KEVIN J. SULLIVAN, Officer, Badge #1393; AUDREY MELBOURNE, Honorable Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-96- 163-PJM) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Allen McClure, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Julia Melville Freit, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McClure v. Carlson, No. CA-96-163- PJM (D. Md. July 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2