Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07495/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07495-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Odell Ewing
Appellant
K. Kinney

Raleigh Police Department

J. A. Silvious
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7495

ODELL EWING,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

J. A. SILVIOUS, Officer of Raleigh Police Department,

 Defendant – Appellee,

and

K. KINNEY, Officer of Raleigh Police Department; RALEIGH 

POLICE DEPARTMENT,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-cv-00064-F)

Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Odell Ewing, Appellant Pro Se. Dorothy Kibler Leapley, Deputy 

City Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7495 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Odell Ewing filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against 

the Raleigh Police Department and Officers J.A. Silvious and K. 

Kinney. After the district court dismissed Ewing’s claims as 

frivolous, we affirmed the dismissal in part, modified to 

reflect that the dismissal of claims challenging his conviction 

was without prejudice. Ewing v. Silvious, 481 F. App’x 802, 802 

(4th Cir. 2012) (No. 11-7683). We vacated in part the district 

court’s ruling regarding Ewing’s claim of excessive force 

against Silvious and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 

803. Following discovery and the parties’ cross-motions for 

summary judgment on remand, the district court granted summary 

judgment for Silvious. Ewing now appeals the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment in Silvious’ favor and denying 

Ewing’s motions for appointment of counsel, to compel,1 and for 

sanctions against Silvious. 

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s 

rulings on Ewing’s discovery motions and his motion for 

appointment of counsel. Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 172 (4th Cir.) (discovery rulings), 

 1 Although Ewing asserts that the district court failed to 

address his motion to compel, the court in fact denied the 

motion—which it characterized as Ewing’s motion for discovery—as 

moot.

Appeal: 14-7495 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 

962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (denial of counsel). We review de novo 

a district court’s order granting summary judgment, “viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” 

Educ. Media Co. at Va. Tech., Inc. v. Insley, 731 F.3d 291, 297 

(4th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue for trial does not exist 

“unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving 

party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Newport 

News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 

434 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record in light of these principles 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.2

 

 2 Ewing attempts to challenge the validity of his 

convictions on appeal. As we recognized in Ewing’s prior 

appeal, his claims are barred because he has not shown that his 

convictions have been overturned or called into question. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Ewing, 481 F. 

App’x at 802. Additionally, insofar as Ewing asserts that the 

district judge was biased against him, we find nothing in the 

record to support Ewing’s bald assertion, as his arguments are 

based solely on his disagreement with the district court’s 

substantive rulings. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 

555 (1994) (recognizing that judicial rulings alone are invalid 

basis for bias or partiality motion). 

Appeal: 14-7495 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Ewing v. Silvious, No. 5:11-cv-00064-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 

2014). 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

Appeal: 14-7495 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 4 of 4