-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BILLY RAY COPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. CRAIG ELLIS; STEVE BIBEY; LANE CARTER; JAMES W. WISE; SHERWOOD No. 96-7931 LAPPING; MR. SMITH; ROBERT S. EWING; MALCOLM W. OWINGO; D. A. KELLY; PAUL S. HELMS; MARY E. MCKETTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1006-F) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 11, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Billy Ray Copley, Appellant Pro Se. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Billy Ray Copley appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983(1994). He alleges that weapons belonging to him were confiscated and destroyed. The dis- trict court dismissed the action as frivolous on grounds that, as the events complained of occurred in 1982, the statute of limitations barred the claims. As Copley notes on appeal, the events complained of occurred in 1992-1993. But Copley admits he voluntarily turned the weapons over to police. After his criminal conviction, the weap- ons were destroyed at the order of the sentencing judge, though Cop- ley alleges he asked his court-appointed attorneys to recover them. Copley handed over his weapons to the police in an effort to con- vince a domestic judge to return Copley's children to his home. Therefore, he has no claim against the police. The judge who ordered the guns destroyed after Copley's criminal conviction, and the sheriff who acted at his direction, are immune from the action. Stump v. Sparkman,
435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); cf. McCray v. Maryland,
456 F.2d 1, 4-5 (4th Cir. 1972) (court clerk may enjoy derivative immunity when acting at the direction of a judge). Copley's court- appointed attorneys are not amenable to suit under§ 1983 as they did not act under color of state law. Hall v. Quillen,
631 F.2d 1154, 1155- 56 (4th Cir. 1980). Therefore, the complaint was subject to summary dismissal, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and the appeal is frivo- lous. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con- tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 96-7931
Filed Date: 6/11/1997
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021