Michael Allen, Jr. v. George Gillenwater

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998937648-2] Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00359-CCE-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999074314]. Mailed to: Michael Allen, Jr., Sheila Jones. [12-2121]

Appeal: 12-2121

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 1 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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2121

Doc: 24

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s 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

Allen’s
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

legal

contentions

are

before

this

and

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

court

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”).

2