Calvin Tyrone Norton v. City of Whiteville

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:16-cv-00133-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000147610]. Mailed to: Calvin Tyrone Norton P. O. Box 1145 Whiteville, NC 28472. [17-1011]

Appeal: 17-1011

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1011

CALVIN TYRONE NORTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF WHITEVILLE, a Municipality; DARREN L. CURRIE, City Manager, in
his official & individual capacity; TERRY MANN, Mayor of Whiteville, Elected
Official, in is official and individual capacity; RACHEL RIVENBARK, Human
Resource Director, in her official capacity and in her individual capacity; TRACEY
CARTER, Police Officer of Whiteville Police Department, in her official and
individual capacity; ELIJAH KEMP, animal control of Whiteville Police
Department, in his official and individual capacity; JEFFERSON WEAVER, an
employee writer for The News Reporter Company, Incorporated, in is official and
individual capacity; THE NEWS REPORTER COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a
business Corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00133-BO)

Submitted: August 18, 2017

Before TRAXLER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: August 31, 2017

Appeal: 17-1011

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Calvin Tyrone Norton, Appellant Pro Se. Clay Allen Collier, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH
COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina; Carolyn Amanda
Martin, STEVENS MARTIN VAUGHN & TADYCH, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1011

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/31/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Calvin Tyrone Norton appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’
motions to dismiss and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. Defendants’
motions to dismiss were properly construed as motions for judgment on the pleadings.
See Burbach Broad. Co. of Del. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405 (4th Cir. 2002).
Thus, we review the district court’s ruling on those motions de novo, applying the same
standard used in evaluating a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Belmora LLC v.
Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697, 705 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct.
1202 (2017); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007) (describing
standard of review).
On appeal, we limit our review to the issues raised in Norton’s informal brief. See
Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of the record reveals
no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of Norton’s Fourth Amendment claim.
See Alvarez v. Montgomery County, 147 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor v.
Mich. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 502 F.3d 452, 454-57 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Weston,
443 F.3d 661, 667 (8th Cir. 2006). Nor do we find error in the district court’s dismissal
of Norton’s Sixth Amendment claim. See United States v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475, 481
(1896); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 879 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Norton also challenges the district court’s dismissal of his claims against The
News Reporter, Inc. and Jefferson Weaver. The district court correctly concluded that
Norton failed to allege a basis for § 1983 liability against these Defendants. See Phillips
v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2009); Wahi v. Charleston Area
3

Appeal: 17-1011

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/31/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 615-16 (4th Cir. 2009). Further, the court appropriately
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Norton’s state law claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012); Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

4