Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Davis v. Bradley, 97-6766 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6766 Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6766 ROBERT L. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK BRADLEY, City Police Officer, in his individual and official capacities; DON WARD, City Police Officer, in his individual and official capacities; HARRY DOLAN, Chief of Police, in his individual and official capac- ities; RICHARD TOWNSEND, District Attorney, in his individual and official capacities; REBECCA SMITH, Probation Officer, in her indi- vidual and official c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6766 ROBERT L. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK BRADLEY, City Police Officer, in his individual and official capacities; DON WARD, City Police Officer, in his individual and official capacities; HARRY DOLAN, Chief of Police, in his individual and official capac- ities; RICHARD TOWNSEND, District Attorney, in his individual and official capacities; REBECCA SMITH, Probation Officer, in her indi- vidual and official capacities; ELLIS PAGE, Probation Officer, in his individual and offi- cial capacities; FRANKIE GREEN FLOYD, Private Citizen, in her individual capacity; JAMIE MICHELLE FLOYD, Private Citizen, in her indi- vidual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-97-156-5-BR) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1997), and denying his motion to recuse. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Bradley, No. CA-97-156-5- BR (E.D.N.C. May 21, 1997). 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. DISMISSED 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