EL v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department; M. Sullivan, Officer; S. Selogy, Officer; Meyers, Officer; Agape, Officer; K. S. Kodad, Officer; Issac, Officer; Airtone, Lieutenant; S. Mobley; T. Moore; T. Wilson; J. Fletcher, Officer; J. Parker; P. Moore; L.B. Diggs; B. Butler; Nurse Green, Sergeant; M. W. Womble; M. T. Retort; B. Scarey; T. Castano; Stouts, Sergeant; R. Monroe; J. H. Frison; R. Burnett; Bradon Jolly, North Carolina State Trooper; W. L. Canter; Cooper Jerrell, Mecklenburg County Sheriff; Eason; Street, Sergeant; Gant, Sergeant; Hood, Officer; R. Chapman, Mecklenburg County Magistrate, Defendants. (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

My'Ka EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. REESE, Officer, Defendant-Appellee, Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department; M. Sullivan, Officer; S. Selogy, Officer; Meyers, Officer; Agape, Officer; K. S. Kodad, Officer; Issac, Officer; Airtone, Lieutenant; S. Mobley; T. Moore; T. Wilson; J. Fletcher, Officer; J. Parker; P. Moore; L.B. Diggs; B. Butler; Nurse Green, Sergeant; M. W. Womble; M. T. Retort; B. Scarey; T. Castano; Stouts, Sergeant; R. Monroe; J. H. Frison; R. Burnett; Bradon Jolly, North Carolina State Trooper; W. L. Canter; Cooper Jerrell, Mecklenburg County Sheriff; Eason; Street, Sergeant; Gant, Sergeant; Hood, Officer; R. Chapman, Mecklenburg County Magistrate, Defendants.

No. 17-2300

Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

My'Ka El, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Edward Peterson, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

My'Ka El appeals the district court's February 28, 2017, order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. El previously appealed the district court's order, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal. El v. Reese, 694 Fed.Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2017). Because we previously have affirmed the district court's order, we dismiss the instant appeal as duplicative and untimely. 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.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law