Tornello Fontaine v. City of Charlotte

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying as moot motion to strike [998757559-2]; denying motion to impose sanctions and for a grand jury trial [998756145-2] Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00131-RJC-DCK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998786534]. Mailed to: Fontaine. [11-2125]

Appeal: 11-2125

Document: 13

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2125

TORNELLO FONTAINE, pierce el-bey Grantor Washitaw
Dugdahmoundyah Muur’s Grantor/In Propria Persona,

de

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE; CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT;
T. BOBREK; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00131-RJC-DCK)

Submitted:

February 9, 2012

Decided:

February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noble Tornello Fontaine Pierce El-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard
Rustin
Perlungher,
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2125

Document: 13

Date Filed: 02/13/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tornello Fontaine appeals the district court’s order
accepting
granting

the

recommendation

Defendants’

motion

§ 1983 (2006) complaint.
no reversible error.
stated

by

the

Charlotte,

No.

of
to

the

dismiss

magistrate

judge

Fontaine’s

42

and

U.S.C.

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

district

court.

See

3:11-cv-00131-RJC-DCK

Fontaine

(W.D.N.C.

v.

Oct.

City
7,

of

2011).

Further, we deny Fontaine’s motion for sanctions and for a grand
jury trial and, accordingly, deny as moot Defendants-Appellees’
motion

to

strike

Fontaine’s

motion.

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