Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Alfonso Simpson v. Susan J. McLamb Police Officer Darel L. Bruestle, Chief of Police Rodney J. Simmon, 91-6316 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-6316
Filed: Oct. 29, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 978 F.2d 1256 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Alfonso SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan J. MCLAMB, Police Officer; Darel L. Bruestle, Chief of Police; Rodney J. Simmon, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-6316. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Februar
More

978 F.2d 1256

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Alfonso SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Susan J. MCLAMB, Police Officer; Darel L. Bruestle, Chief
of Police; Rodney J. Simmon, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-6316.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 26, 1992
Decided: October 29, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-90-743-CRT-H)

Alfonso Simpson, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Harrison Sasser, III, Elizabeth Levan Riley, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

Affirmed.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Alfonso Simpson appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simpson v. McLamb, No. CA-90-743-CRT-H (E.D.N.C. September 11, 1991). We dispense with 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

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