The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-7197•Charlie Edward Riddle v. McDowell County Sheriff Department
24-7197Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 14, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7197
CHARLIE EDWARD RIDDLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCDOWELL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; RICKY BUCHANAN,
Sheriff; CHRIS TAYLOR, Lt. over the drug unit; JESSIE HICKS, Drug Unit;
JASON GRINSTAFF, High Sheriff,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 24-7198
CHARLIE EDWARD RIDDLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCDOWELL SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; YANCEY COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT; CHRIS TAYLOR, Lt.; RICKY BUCHANAN, Sheriff;
UNKNOWN, Sheriff of Yancey Co Sheriff Dept.; WILSON, Lt., Yancey Co Sheriff
Dept.; MARION POLICE DEPARTMENT; MATT HUGGINS, Marion PD;
RUSTY JENKINS, Marion PD,
Defendants - Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:24-cv-00265-MR;
1:24-cv-00285-MR)
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 14, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Edward Riddle, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Edward Riddle appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order and dismissing his second
complaint as duplicative of the first. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Riddle v. McDowell Cnty. Sheriff
Dep’t, Nos. 1:24-cv-00265-MR; 1:24-cv-00285-MR (W.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2024). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.