Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Camastro v. City of Wheeling, 98-2589 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2589 Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2589 DANTE VINCENT CAMASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF WHEELING, a municipal corporation; PAUL MCINTIRE; JACK LIPPHART; DAVID KLUG; RUSTY JEBBIA; DAR ROBINSON; JAMES CURNES; MICHAEL NAU; CLIFF SLIGAR; ELMER DIETZ; JACK FELTON; A. E. HENSEN; CANDACE BIPPUS; GERRY IRISH; WESLEY NEAL; CLIFF RECTOR; MRS. ROBERT YAHN, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Yahn, deceased; KEVIN STRYKER; LARRY HOSKINS, Defendants - App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2589 DANTE VINCENT CAMASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF WHEELING, a municipal corporation; PAUL MCINTIRE; JACK LIPPHART; DAVID KLUG; RUSTY JEBBIA; DAR ROBINSON; JAMES CURNES; MICHAEL NAU; CLIFF SLIGAR; ELMER DIETZ; JACK FELTON; A. E. HENSEN; CANDACE BIPPUS; GERRY IRISH; WESLEY NEAL; CLIFF RECTOR; MRS. ROBERT YAHN, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Yahn, deceased; KEVIN STRYKER; LARRY HOSKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-8-5) Submitted: February 23, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dante Vincent Camastro, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Alston Stryker, Michael Glenn Gallaway, BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON, Wheeling, West Virginia; J. D. Miller, Wheeling, West Virginia; Michael Edgar Hooper, HERNDON, MORTON, HERNDON & YAEGER, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dante Vincent Camastro appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint, dismissing his state law claims, and denying his motion to recuse. 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. See Camastro v. City of Wheeling, No. CA- 97-8-5 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 1998). We deny Camastro’s motion for a stay of appeal while he appeals the defendants’ denial of his zoning variance application to the Ohio County Circuit Court be- cause the outcome of that proceeding would not affect our dispo- sition of his federal claims. 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