Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Michael Allen, Jr. v. George Gillenwater, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Michael A. Allen, Jr. and Sheila Jones against several defendants. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment and state law defamation claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-2121

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Michael A. Allen, Jr. and Sheila Jones against several defendants. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment and state law defamation claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views2 pages

    Michael Allen, Jr. v. George Gillenwater, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Michael A. Allen, Jr. and Sheila Jones against several defendants. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment and state law defamation claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The appellate court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-2121

    MICHAEL A. ALLEN, JR.; SHEILA JONES,


    Plaintiffs Appellants,
    v.
    GEORGE GILLENWATER; JEREMY JONES; D. E. YOUNG; DET.
    TUNSTALL; WILLIAM KELLY; G. A. HARRIS; ROBERT VOORHEES,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
    District Judge. (1:10-cv-00359-CCE-JEP)

    Submitted:

    February 22, 2013

    Decided:

    March 28, 2013

    Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael A. Allen, Jr., Sheila Jones, Appellants Pro Se. Kari


    Russwurm Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants appeal the district courts order granting
    summary judgment on their Fourth Amendment claims raised under
    42

    U.S.C.

    defamation

    1983

    (2006)

    claim.

    reversible error. *

    We

    have

    and

    Appellant

    reviewed

    the

    Allens
    record

    state

    and

    law

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the

    reasons stated by the district court.


    1:10-cv-00359-CCE-JEP

    (M.D.N.C.

    Allen v. Gillenwater, No.

    Aug.

    15,

    2012).

    We

    deny

    Appellants motion for appointment of counsel.

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    this

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    Although Appellants allege that Appellees improperly


    withheld discovery materials from them, we find no basis in the
    record to support this assertion. Insofar as Appellants seek to
    introduce new documents and request previously-unavailable
    records from a criminal case, we must decline to consider these
    materials. See Fed. R. App. P. 10 (defining record on appeal
    and grounds for supplementation); United States v. Hussein, 478
    F.3d
    318,
    335-36
    (6th
    Cir.
    2007)
    (recognizing
    that
    supplementation of record is intended to correct omissions from
    or misstatements in the record for appeal, not to introduce new
    evidence in the court of appeals).

    You might also like