Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Head v. Rutherford County Sheriff, 04-1893 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1893 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 11, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1893 TIMOTHY DANIEL HEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUTHERFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and Operations Center 911; DANIEL J. GOOD, Sheriff, an individual; RUTHERFORD TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT; GREENWAY, Chief, an individual; FOREST CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; RANDY CHAPMAN, Chief, an individual; SPRINDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DEVINEY, Chief, an individual; TOWN OF LAKE LURE, Police Department; MIKE BUSTLE, Chief, an individu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1893 TIMOTHY DANIEL HEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUTHERFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and Operations Center 911; DANIEL J. GOOD, Sheriff, an individual; RUTHERFORD TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT; GREENWAY, Chief, an individual; FOREST CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; RANDY CHAPMAN, Chief, an individual; SPRINDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DEVINEY, Chief, an individual; TOWN OF LAKE LURE, Police Department; MIKE BUSTLE, Chief, an individual, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-04-45-1) Submitted: November 29, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Daniel Head, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Douglas MacLatchie, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, Sandra Moody King, RUSSELL & KING, Asheville, North Carolina, Matthew L. Mason, MOSS, MASON & HILL, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Daniel Head appeals the district court’s orders (1) dismissing Head’s claim that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment property rights and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Head v. Rutherford County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-04-45-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2004, and May 11, 2004). 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