Greene v. Hollaway

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JOHN F. GREENE,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLLAWAY, Deputy, Defendant-Appellee,  No. 01-7221 and LOUDOUN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; STEVE SIMPSON, Sheriff, Defendants.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-629-3) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL John F. Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, O’CONNELL & O’CONNELL, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. 2 GREENE v. HOLLAWAY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: John F. Greene appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting judg- ment1 for Loudoun County Sheriff’s Deputy K.W. Hollaway2 in Greene’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001). Greene alleged Hollaway used excessive force by spraying Greene with oleoresin capsicum spray ("pepper spray") during a jail lock-down procedure. Initially, we conclude the magistrate judge did not plainly err in failing to secure the presence of witnesses subpoe- naed by Greene. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288-89 (6th Cir. 1983). Further, the magistrate judge did not err in concluding, after hearing testimony from Greene and Hollaway, that Hollaway did not violate Greene’s constitutional rights or, in the alternative, that Hollaway was entitled to qualified immunity. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575-74 (1985); Brown v. Gilmore, ___ F.3d ___, No. 01-1749, slip op. at 8 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2002). Accordingly, we affirm the judg- ment. 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. AFFIRMED 1 The parties consented to proceed before a United States magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.A. § 636(c). 2 The record refers to the spelling of defendant’s last name as both "Hollaway" and "Holloway." For consistency, we have adopted the spell- ing used by the district court on its docket report.