Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pinilla v. Malfitano, 97-6978 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6978 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jul. 17, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6978 VICTOR MANUEL PINILLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIMOTHY MALFITANO; CHIEF OF POLICE, Jackson- ville, North Carolina; JOHN DOE, unknown Jacksonville Police Department personnel; HERRERA SERGIO; SELOBY STEVEN; ROBERT ALBERT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1064-5-BR) Submitted: Jul
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6978 VICTOR MANUEL PINILLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIMOTHY MALFITANO; CHIEF OF POLICE, Jackson- ville, North Carolina; JOHN DOE, unknown Jacksonville Police Department personnel; HERRERA SERGIO; SELOBY STEVEN; ROBERT ALBERT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1064-5-BR) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 17, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Manuel Pinilla, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Fulton Dotson, Jr., WARLICK, MILSTED, DOTSON & CARTER, Jacksonville, North Caro- lina; Clay Allen Collier, CROSSLEY, MCINTOSH, PRIOR & COLLIER, Wilmington, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pinilla v. Malfitano, No. CA-95-1064-5-BR (E.D.N.C. May 21, 1997, June 12, 1997). 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