Filed: Feb. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2043 STELLA L. ARCARO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALICIA H. SMITH, individually, and as a Police Officer and Agent for the Town of Christians- burg; TOWN OF CHRISTIANSBURG, A Virginia Municipal Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-59-7) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 17, 20
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2043 STELLA L. ARCARO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALICIA H. SMITH, individually, and as a Police Officer and Agent for the Town of Christians- burg; TOWN OF CHRISTIANSBURG, A Virginia Municipal Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-59-7) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 17, 200..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2043 STELLA L. ARCARO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALICIA H. SMITH, individually, and as a Police Officer and Agent for the Town of Christians- burg; TOWN OF CHRISTIANSBURG, A Virginia Municipal Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-59-7) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. B.K. Cruey, Shawsville, Virginia, for Appellant. Elizabeth K. Dillon, GUYNN & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stella L. Arcaro appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Arcaro v. Smith, No. CA-97-59-7 (W.D. Va. July 14, 1999). 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