Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harold Strickland v. Mike Mondule, 14-7465 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7465 Visitors: 48
Filed: Mar. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7465 HAROLD E. STRICKLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIKE MONDULE, Sheriff; SERGEANT BREA; SERGEANT MILAM; SERGEANT CALLAHAN; SERGEANT BOOTH; DANVILLE CITY JAIL; JOHN DOE(S); CHIEF DEPUTY SALMON, Defendants – Appellees, and THE CITY OF DANVILLE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:12-cv-00559-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: February
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7465


HAROLD E. STRICKLAND,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

MIKE MONDULE, Sheriff; SERGEANT BREA; SERGEANT MILAM;
SERGEANT CALLAHAN; SERGEANT BOOTH; DANVILLE CITY JAIL; JOHN
DOE(S); CHIEF DEPUTY SALMON,

                Defendants – Appellees,

          and

THE CITY OF DANVILLE,

                Defendant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00559-JPJ-PMS)


Submitted:   February 27, 2015              Decided:     March 12, 2015


Before MOTZ and    GREGORY,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold E. Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. John Chadwick Johnson,
Christopher Carey Newton, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                2
PER CURIAM:

       Harold    E.   Strickland     appeals     the    district   court’s      order

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering

judgment for Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.

We    have    reviewed     the    record   and   find    no    reversible    error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court.       Strickland v. Mondule, No. 7:12-cv-00559-JPJ-PMS (W.D.

Va. Sept. 8, 2014).              We deny the motions for appointment of

counsel, for preparation of a transcript at government expense,

and   to     appear   at   oral    argument,     and    we    dispense   with   oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this 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