917 F2d 557 Crawford v. Gunnoe 89-M-510 Jd

917 F.2d 557
Unpublished Disposition

Sidika CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Richard GUNNOE, in his official capacity as court-appointed
counsel, magistrate court case No. 89-M-510, James Beasley,
William Jefferies, in his official capacity as duly elected
Magistrate of Summers County, Joseph Aucremanne, in his
official capacity as duly elected prosecutor Summers County,
Frances Brown, Reva Brown, Citizens of Summers County,
Hinton, West Virginia, J.D. Willis, Deputy, in his official
capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Summers County, Tom Briers, in
his capacity as duly elected sheriff of Summers County,
Jerry Smith, in his official capacity as police officer for
the City of Hinton, City of Hinton, an incorporated City of
the State of West Virginia, Kay Meadows, in her official
capacity as clerk of the Magistrate Court, State of West
Virginia, a state of the United States of America, Perry
Mann, in his official capacity as Assistant Prosecutor of
Summers County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1787.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 1, 1990.
Decided Nov. 1, 1990.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden, II, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-356-5)

Sidika Crawford, appellant pro se.

S.D. W.Va.


Before DONALD RUSSELL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.


view counter

Sidika Crawford appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* Crawford v. Gunnoe, CA-90-356-5 (S.D.W.Va. May 25, 1990). 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.




In addition to the reasons cited by the district court, we note that all defendants in this case which are state actors were sued in their official capacity and thus are not subject to suit under Sec. 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 57 U.S.L.W. 4677 (U.S. June 15, 1989) (No. 87-1207)