Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Herbert Lee Bounds v. Gary E. Troutman, Donald Burkhead, Leo Hoban, City of Leitchfield, Kentucky, Qulin Esque, 89-5414 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 89-5414 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 27, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 886 F.2d 330 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Herbert Lee BOUNDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary E. TROUTMAN, Donald Burkhead, Leo Hoban, City of Leitchfield, Kentucky, Qulin Esque, Defendants-Appellees. No. 89-5414. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Ci
More

886 F.2d 330

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Herbert Lee BOUNDS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Gary E. TROUTMAN, Donald Burkhead, Leo Hoban, City of
Leitchfield, Kentucky, Qulin Esque, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-5414.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 1989.

1

Before MERRITT and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge.*

ORDER

2

Plaintiff, Herbert Lee Bounds, appeals an order of the district court which dismissed his civil rights action. He now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the appointment of counsel. Upon review of the record and the plaintiff's brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. As the basis of his claims for both compensatory and punitive damages, he alleged that defendants had violated his rights under the fourth amendment by conducting an unreasonable search and seizure of his van. Defendants' chief response to the complaint was the filing of a motion for summary judgment in which they argued that, on the basis of the testimony contained in plaintiff's deposition, he could not maintain a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The district court concurred and dismissed the complaint in an order entered on March 23, 1989. Plaintiff then filed this appeal.

4

Upon review of the record, this court concludes that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's complaint. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted; the motion for appointment of counsel is hereby denied and the district court's final order is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable James L. Graham, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

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