Wade Satterfield v. Charles Horne, No. 18-2321 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2321 WADE B. SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN CHARLES HORNE; SERGEANT JACK BIDER; LIEUTENANT KEVIN HAMMOND; COLONEL K. L. WRIGHT, Chief of Police; CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF CHESAPEAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Magistrate Judge. (2:16-cv-00665-LRL) Submitted: May 31, 2019 Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: July 26, 2019 Wade B. Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa A. Hamann, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Wade B. Satterfield appeals the magistrate judge’s * order granting summary judgment to Defendants on Satterfield’s racially motivated retaliation claims, which Satterfield filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2018), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Satterfield v. Horne, No. 2:16-cv00665LRL (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2018). On appeal, Satterfield presents arguments and evidence that he did not raise at trial, which are accordingly waived. See Bresler v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 855 F.3d 178, 201 n.23 (4th Cir. 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 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent 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.