Kareem Kirk-Bey v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00330-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999286552]. Mailed to: Kareem Abdullah Kirk-Bey. [13-7324]

Appeal: 13-7324

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7324

KAREEM ABDULLAH KIRK-BEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE
MECKLENBURG
POLICE
DEPARTMENT;
PETER
GILCHRIST, III; CHRISTOPHER M. COLLIER; APRIL N. PHIFER,

S.

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00330-RJC)

Submitted:

January 22, 2014

Decided:

January 29, 2014

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Abdullah Kirk-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7324

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kareem Abdullah Kirk-Bey appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court. *
Dep’t,

No.

dispense

3:13-cv-00330-RJC

with

contentions

Kirk-Bey v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police

are

oral

argument

adequately

(W.D.N.C.
because

presented

in

July
the
the

29,

2013).

We

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

To the extent that Kirk-Bey’s claim of false arrest does
not necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction, see
Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir.
1996), his claim is, nevertheless, without merit.
As noted by
the district court, Kirk-Bey has previously raised this claim
against the police department in Kirk-Bey v. Murray, No.
3:12-cv-00106 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2012).
The district court
denied relief and Kirk-Bey did not appeal. Thus, his attempt to
raise the claim in a new action is barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d
177, 210 (4th Cir. 2009).

2