Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Walker v. Pitts, 03-7402 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7402 Visitors: 47
Filed: Feb. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7402 SHAMEKE WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARSHALL PITTS, Lieutenant, Broad River Correctional Institution; HERMAN WRIGHT, Sergeant; WILLIAM CAMLIN; LLOYD B. JACKSON, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and C. J. CEPAK, Warden; JOHN MAXCY, Major; PERCY JONES, Captain, Defendants, JACK M. CLARKE, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7402 SHAMEKE WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARSHALL PITTS, Lieutenant, Broad River Correctional Institution; HERMAN WRIGHT, Sergeant; WILLIAM CAMLIN; LLOYD B. JACKSON, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and C. J. CEPAK, Warden; JOHN MAXCY, Major; PERCY JONES, Captain, Defendants, JACK M. CLARKE, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-3173-17-6) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shameke Walker, Appellant Pro Se. William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., William James Johnson, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Shameke Walker appeals the district court’s order entering judgment for Defendants in accordance with the jury’s verdict in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action alleging the excessive use of force. We have reviewed the record and other materials before us and find no reversible error. The parties’ versions of events were contradictory. We will not disturb the jury’s credibility determination in favor of the Defendants, nor will we weigh the evidence anew. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 - 3 -
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