Marlon Summerville v. C. W. Shield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01505-JCC-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999295095]. Mailed to: Marlon Bradford Summerville. [13-7521]

Appeal: 13-7521

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/11/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7521

MARLON SUMMERVILLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. W. SHIELDS, Police Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01505-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:

January 28, 2014

Decided:

February 11, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Bradford Summerville, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7521

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/11/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marlon Summerville, a Virginia state inmate, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint against Manassas City Police
Department Officer C. W. Shields, asserting that Shields used
constitutionally
arrest.

excessive

force

in

effecting

Summerville’s

Summerville appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of Shields.

We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary
judgment,

“viewing

the

facts

and

the

reasonable

inferences

therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011).

Our review

of the record confirms that the district court properly granted
summary

judgment

reasons

stated

in
by

Shields’
the

favor,

district

and

court.

we

affirm

See

for

Summerville

the
v.

Shields, No. 1:12-cv-01505-JCC-TRJ (E.D. Va., Aug. 22, 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2