Filed: Aug. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1713 DANTE VINCENT CAMASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DICK ROBINSON; CLIFF RECTOR; JOHN DOES, and one or more, Defendants - Appellees, CITY OF WHEELING, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-73-5) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1713 DANTE VINCENT CAMASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DICK ROBINSON; CLIFF RECTOR; JOHN DOES, and one or more, Defendants - Appellees, CITY OF WHEELING, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-73-5) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1713 DANTE VINCENT CAMASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DICK ROBINSON; CLIFF RECTOR; JOHN DOES, and one or more, Defendants - Appellees, CITY OF WHEELING, Party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-73-5) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dante Vincent Camastro, Appellant Pro Se. John Edward Gompers, GOMPERS, MCCARTHY & MCCLURE, Wheeling, West Virginia; Cliff Rector, Bridgeport, Ohio, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 1999) 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. See Camastro v. Robinson, No. CA-98-73-5 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 27, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2