Filed: May 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-60581 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60581 Summary Calendar DARREN TOLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARK STEED et al., Defendants; MARK STEED, as trooper for the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:98-CV-224-D-A - May 2, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Darren Toler argues that the distric
Summary: No. 99-60581 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60581 Summary Calendar DARREN TOLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARK STEED et al., Defendants; MARK STEED, as trooper for the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:98-CV-224-D-A - May 2, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Darren Toler argues that the district..
More
No. 99-60581
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60581
Summary Calendar
DARREN TOLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARK STEED et al.,
Defendants;
MARK STEED, as trooper
for the Mississippi Highway
Safety Patrol,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:98-CV-224-D-A
--------------------
May 2, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darren Toler argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that without a
warrant or probable cause he was illegally arrested and his person
and property were illegally searched by defendant Steed. Toler
also argues that his constitutional rights were violated by
defendant Steed’s failure to advise him of the charge for which he
was being arrested. Having considered the parties’ briefs,
pleadings, and summary judgment evidence, we AFFIRM the district
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-60581
-2-
court’s opinion for essentially the same reasons as presented
below.
AFFIRMED.