Sullivan v. County of Pender, No. 06-1497 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1497 DONALD SULLIVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARSON SMITH, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Pender County, North Carolina; MAJOR KEITH D. HINKLE; CAPTAIN MARK SLOAN, individually and in their capacities as officers of the Sheriff s Department of Pender County, North Carolina; DEPUTY E. S. WYRICK, JR.; DEPUTY REED; DEPUTY GONZALES; JOE DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE III; JANE DOE, individually and in their capacities as deputies in the Sheriff s Department of Pender County, North Carolina; COUNTY OF PENDER; MAGISTRATE DELORES R. HELMS, individually and in her capacity as an officer of the court for the Fifth Judicial District of North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:04-cv-00026-FL) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: December 28, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. James Redfern Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; David J. Adinolfi, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Donald Sullivan appeals the district court s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. order We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sullivan v. Smith, No. 7:04-cv-00026-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2006). 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 - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.