Martha Noll v. Thomas Gallagher, Sr., City of Brigantine

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2453
___________
MARTHA NOLL,
Appellant
v.
THOMAS GALLAGHER, SR., *CITY OF BRIGANTINE;
*BRIGANTINE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF
ATLANTIC CITY; ATLANTIC CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT;
TOWNSHIP OF MULLICA; MULLICA TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT;
*TOWNSHIP OF EGG HARBOR; *EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT; *CITY OF EGG HARBOR; *EGG HARBOR CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF ABSECON; ABSECON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY; GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ABC PUBLIC ENTITY, (I-X) (representing fictitious entities);
XYZ, SUBDIVISIONS, BOARDS OR AGENCIES (I-X) (representing fictitious
Subdivisions, Boards or Agencies); JOHN DOES, AGENTS, SERVANTS AND/OR
EMPLOYEES (I-X) (representing fictitious agents, servants or employees);
JOHN P. BIENIAKOWSKI, SGT.
*(Dismissed per Court order dated 10/11/02)
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-03440)
District Judge: The Honorable Jerome B. Simandle.
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

-- 1 of 6 --

* Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
March 11, 2003
BEFORE: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and ALARCON,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 27, 2003)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Martha Noll was injured in a accident between her car and another
stolen car being pursued by the police. She appeals from a summary judgment in favor of
Township of Mullica, Mullica Township Police Department, Township of Galloway,
Galloway Township Police Department, and Sgt. John P. Bieniakowski. Noll alleges as
error the issue listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from her brief. Because we conclude
that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by appellant are as follows:
whether the District Court abused its discretion or committed
an error of law when it dismissed all claims asserted against
defendant-appellees. It is contended by plaintiff that (1)
defendant-appellees’ conduct should have ‘shocked the
conscience’ of the Court, or a factual issue is presented in
regard to that issue and (2) defendant-appellee’s [sic] conduct

-- 2 of 6 --

3
was so reckless as to constitute willful misconduct and cause
them to lose their state statutory immunity from liability, or a
factual issue is presented in regard to that issue.
Appellant’s Br. at 2.
II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and
the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The reasons why we write an
opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the
attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We use a not-precedential opinion in
cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the
opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances
when we affirm by not-precedential opinion and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons
supporting the court’s decision. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a full
memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very
extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge Simandle of the District Court for the
District of New Jersey. Judge Simandle’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its
order and refutes the appellant’s allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly
unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given by
the District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially

-- 3 of 6 --

4
for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 26th day of April, 2002,
we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated the 26th day of April, 2002.

-- 4 of 6 --

5
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. NyGaard_________
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 6 --

-- 6 of 6 --