Case Name: John E. ELKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.A. BROOME, in his individual and official capacities, as a police officer for the City of Winston-Salem, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-16
Citations: 122 F. App'x 40
Docket Number: No. 04-2108
Parties: John E. ELKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J.A. BROOME, in his individual and official capacities, as a police officer for the City of Winston-Salem, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
John E. ELKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J.A. BROOME, in his individual and official capacities, as a police officer for the City of Winston-Salem, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-2108.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 21, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2005.
John E. Elkins, Appellant pro se.
Gusti Wiesenfeld Frankel, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John E. Elkins appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant arresting police officer in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action in which he alleged violations of the First and Fourth Amendments in relation to his arrest. He also appeals magistrate judge orders that sanctioned him under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4) for his refusal to answer questions during two scheduled depositions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and magistrate judge. See Elkins v. Broome, No. CA-02-305-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2004; June 24, 2004; and July 26, 2004). 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