Freddie Andaya v. Detective J.P. McClaskey, No. 17-7111 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7111 FREDDIE ANDAYA, a/k/a Raymond Garcia, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DETECTIVE J.P. MCCLASKEY, DET. CITY OF CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE K. CHILDERS; DETECTIVE R. GONSALEZ; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DETECTIVE KELLY SEAGRAVES; DETECTIVE ELIZABETH LOVE; DETECTIVE G. BACOTE; DETECTIVE J. DAVIS; SHERIFF KEVIN AUTEN; DETECTIVE UVALDO RIOS, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA; ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; CHIEF GUY SMITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00093-LPA) Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freddie Andaya, Appellant Pro Se. Torin L. Fury, William L. Hill, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Kenneth Ray Raynor, RAYNOR LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Steven N. Baker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Freddie Andaya appeals the magistrate judge’s text order 1 denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in which he asserted that the magistrate judge made a mistake by not appointing counsel to represent him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) excessive force action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Andaya v. McClaskey, No. 1:12-cv-00093-LPA (M.D.N.C. July 25, 2017). 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 1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 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.