Filed: May 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2842 CHARLES C. ESTELLE, JR.; CHARLES C. ESTELLE, SR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MARYLAND; CLARENCE EDWARDS, Police Chief, County of Montgomery; STEPHEN DECARLO, Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND; ANDREW L. SONNER; ALEXANDER FOSTER; PATRICK BATES; GOOD COUNSEL HIGH SCHOOL, Xavieran Brothers; MICHAEL MURPHY, Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2842 CHARLES C. ESTELLE, JR.; CHARLES C. ESTELLE, SR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MARYLAND; CLARENCE EDWARDS, Police Chief, County of Montgomery; STEPHEN DECARLO, Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND; ANDREW L. SONNER; ALEXANDER FOSTER; PATRICK BATES; GOOD COUNSEL HIGH SCHOOL, Xavieran Brothers; MICHAEL MURPHY, Pre..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2842 CHARLES C. ESTELLE, JR.; CHARLES C. ESTELLE, SR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, MARYLAND; CLARENCE EDWARDS, Police Chief, County of Montgomery; STEPHEN DECARLO, Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF MARYLAND; ANDREW L. SONNER; ALEXANDER FOSTER; PATRICK BATES; GOOD COUNSEL HIGH SCHOOL, Xavieran Brothers; MICHAEL MURPHY, President, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2648-AW, CA-94-3241-AW) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles C. Estelle, Jr., and Charles C. Estelle, Sr., Appellants Pro Se. James Louis Parsons, Jr., COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Estelle v. County of Montgomery, Nos. CA-94-2648-AW; CA-94- 3241-AW (D. Md. Sept. 19 & Oct. 4, 1995). 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 2