Opinion

Brown v. Obendorf

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 7, 2007
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.5%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7980

MICHAEL JOHN BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MAYOR OBENDORF, Mayor, Virginia Beach; TERRY

S. JENKENS, Director, Community Service Board;

ALFRED M. JACOCKS, Chief of Police, Virginia

Beach; BRUCE C. MARQUIES, Norfolk Police

Chief; NORFOLK FIRE RESCUE, Paramedic III;

NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR

ADMINISTRATION, Norfolk General Hospital

Sentara; PAUL FRAIM, Mayor of Norfolk;

VIRGINIA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; PAUL

LANTEIGNE, Sheriff of VBCC; MEDICAL

CONTRACTOR, VBCC; POLICE CHIEF, Virginia

Beach,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00509-RBS)

Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: May 7, 2007

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael John Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael John Brown appeals from the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error, as Brown failed

to adequately allege that his injuries were the result of an

intentional exercise of force by police officers in violation of

the Fourth Amendment.* See Vathekan v. Prince George’s County, 154

F.3d 173, 178 (4th Cir. 1998). Therefore, we affirm the district

court’s ruling and deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

Brown has failed to clearly address the district court’s

dismissal of any of his other claims; therefore, review of those

claims on appeal has been waived. See Edwards v. City of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); 4th Cir. R.

34(b).

- 3 -

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.