UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2007
DENNIS A. GIVENS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SCOTT R. SMITH, individually and collectively; KEITH C.
GAMBLE, individually and collectively; STEPHEN M. FOWLER,
individually and collectively; D. LUKE FURBEE, individually
and collectively; OFFICER S. A. ZIMMERMAN, individually and
collectively; OFFICER J. E. DEAN, individually and
collectively; J. C. WEAVER, a/k/a Jack C. Weaver,
individually and collectively; HONORABLE JAMES P. MAZZONE,
individually and collectively; HONORABLE ARTHUR M. RECHT,
individually and collectively; HONORABLE RONALD E. WILSON,
individually and collectively; KENNETH W. BLAKE,
individually and collectively,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00145-FPS-JES)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis A. Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Deva A. Solomon, Monte Lee
Williams, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia;
Diane G. Senakievich, David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC,
Wheeling, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, PULLIN, FOWLER,
FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Kenneth
Louis Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC,
Morgantown, West Virginia; John Michael Hedges, Teresa Jean
Lyons, HEDGES LYONS & SHEPHERD, Morgantown, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis A. Givens appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and
dismissing Givens’ complaint in part and granting summary
judgment in part. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Givens v. Weaver, No. 5:12-cv-00145-FPS-
JES (N.D.W. Va. July 1 & Aug. 27, 2014). We deny Givens’ motion
for sanctions and to strike. 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
3