Harold Strickland v. Mike Mondule

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to appear at oral argument [999460684-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999460685-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999460688-2]. Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00559-JPJ-PMS. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999544240]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-7465]

Appeal: 14-7465

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7465

HAROLD E. STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MIKE MONDULE, Sheriff; SERGEANT BREA; SERGEANT MILAM;
SERGEANT CALLAHAN; SERGEANT BOOTH; DANVILLE CITY JAIL; JOHN
DOE(S); CHIEF DEPUTY SALMON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
THE CITY OF DANVILLE,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00559-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted:

February 27, 2015

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

and

March 12, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 14-7465

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Harold E. Strickland, Appellant Pro Se. John Chadwick Johnson,
Christopher Carey Newton, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7465

Doc: 22

Filed: 03/12/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Harold

E.

Strickland

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering
judgment for Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Strickland v. Mondule, No. 7:12-cv-00559-JPJ-PMS (W.D.

Va. Sept. 8, 2014).

We deny the motions for appointment of

counsel, for preparation of a transcript at government expense,
and

to

appear

at

oral

argument,

and

we

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3