816 F2d 674 Utchek v. M O'Rourke C Rh Jr Me

816 F.2d 674

Gary L. UTCHEK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John M. O'ROURKE, personally and as Superintendent of the
West Virginia Department of Public Safety; Howard C.
Beverley, personally and in his capacity as Deputy
Superintendent of the West Virginia Department of Public
Safety; R.H. Miller, personally and as Major, Internal
Affairs, West Virginia Department of Public Safety; David
Lee Lemmon, personally and in his capacity as Captain, West
Virginia Department of Public Safety; J.R. Smith,
personally and as Sergeant, West Virginia Department of
Public Safety; M.E. Kilburn, personally and as Corporal,
West Virginia Department of Public Safety; Jeff Stevenson,
personally and as Trooper, West Virginia Department of
Public Safety, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-2108.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 3, 1987.
Decided April 9, 1987.

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Before WIDENER, CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Richard Lawrence Withers, for appellant.

Charles R. Bailey (Shuman, Annand & Poe, on brief), for appellees.

PER CURIAM:


Advertisement
view counter
1

Gary L. Utchek formerly worked as a West Virginia state trooper in Cross Lanes, West Virginia. During his employment, an internal newsletter of the department printed a derogatory article about Utchek that included numerous references to his Polish ancestry. He was later dismissed for failing to obey an order. After his dismissal, Utchek sued under Secs. 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. He alleged (1) that the newsletter incident and many other incidents of harassment occurred with no corrective action from the department, (2) that he was fired partly for complaining of the unprofessional conduct of other police officers, and (3) that the department attempted to interfere with his obtaining a new job elsewhere. The district court dismissed. We affirm.

2

Plaintiff previously sued in state court. The district court correctly found that the prior litigation gave him a full and fair opportunity to present all the claims he now presents in federal court. The district court also correctly found that plaintiff's claims were time-barred. We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court.

3

AFFIRMED.