G. Mark Seals v. CITY OF WHEELING, West Virginia, as a municipal corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2356
G. MARK SEALS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF WHEELING, West Virginia, as a
municipal corporation; JOSEPH PETRI, former
Wheeling Police Chief, individually and in
official capacity; THOMAS MILLER, Wheeling
Police Officer, individually and in official
capacity; JOHN DANIEL, Wheeling Police
Sergeant, individually and in official
capacity; TARIS FARABEE, Wheeling Police
Officer, individually and in official
capacity; JOHN DOE, One or more un-named,
individually and for officially sanctioned
actions; LAW ENFORCEMENT, any unidentified law
enforcement personnel, individually and in
official capacities; MANUFACTURER/SUPPLIER OF
PEPPER SPRAY, identity of corporation to be
determined and for officially sanctioned
actions; ODGEN NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED, a
West Virginia Corporation and for officially
sanctioned actions; OHIO COUNTY, WEST
VIRGINIA, a West Virginia political
subdivision for declaratory and injunctive
relief only; SCOTT SMITH, The Honorable, Ohio
County Prosecuting Attorney, for declaratory
and injunctive relief only; STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-02-68-5)

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Mark Seals, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
G. Mark Seals appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Seals v. City of
Wheeling, No. CA-02-68-5 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 9, 2003). 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

-- 3 of 3 --