Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Willingham v. City of Jacksonville, 96-1396 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1396 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1396 N. JEROME WILLINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF JACKSONVILLE; CHRISTOPHER MARK PAD- GETT, of the Jacksonville Police Department, Members of the Jacksonville City Council, Defendants - Appellees, and M. C. CHOATE, Mayor; DOROTHY S. PULLICINO; TURNER G. BLOUNT; MORRIS V. DAUGHTRY; GREG JOHNSTON; JAMES SLOAN; JAMES N. SMITH; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EDWARD W. FARNELL, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United St
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1396 N. JEROME WILLINGHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF JACKSONVILLE; CHRISTOPHER MARK PAD- GETT, of the Jacksonville Police Department, Members of the Jacksonville City Council, Defendants - Appellees, and M. C. CHOATE, Mayor; DOROTHY S. PULLICINO; TURNER G. BLOUNT; MORRIS V. DAUGHTRY; GREG JOHNSTON; JAMES SLOAN; JAMES N. SMITH; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EDWARD W. FARNELL, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-41-7-F) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. N. Jerome Willingham, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยง 1983 (1994) 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. Willingham v. City of Jacksonville, No. CA-95-41-7-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 1996). 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
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