U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

Camastro v. City of Wheeling

Camastro v. City of Wheeling
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 19, 1999

Camastro v. City of Wheeling

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2589

DANTE VINCENT CAMASTRO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

CITY OF WHEELING, a municipal corporation; PAUL MCINTIRE; JACK LIPPHART; DAVID KLUG; RUSTY JEBBIA; DAR ROBINSON; JAMES CURNES; MICHAEL NAU; CLIFF SLIGAR; ELMER DIETZ; JACK FELTON; A. E. HENSEN; CANDACE BIPPUS; GERRY IRISH; WESLEY NEAL; CLIFF RECTOR; MRS. ROBERT YAHN, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Yahn, deceased; KEVIN STRYKER; LARRY HOSKINS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-8-5)

Submitted: February 23, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dante Vincent Camastro, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Alston Stryker, Michael Glenn Gallaway, BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON, Wheeling, West Virginia; J. D. Miller, Wheeling, West Virginia; Michael Edgar Hooper, HERNDON, MORTON, HERNDON & YAEGER, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dante Vincent Camastro appeals the district court’s order de- nying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint, dismissing his state law claims, and denying his motion to recuse.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Camastro v. City of Wheeling, No. CA- 97-8-5 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 1998). We deny Camastro’s motion for a stay of appeal while he appeals the defendants’ denial of his zoning variance application to the Ohio County Circuit Court be- cause the outcome of that proceeding would not affect our dispo- sition of his federal claims.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.