Filed: Feb. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6680 ROBERT PAIGE-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; G. J. HAYES; PAMELA ALSTON; BARRY J. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-38-5-H) Submitted: August 5, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6680 ROBERT PAIGE-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; G. J. HAYES; PAMELA ALSTON; BARRY J. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-38-5-H) Submitted: August 5, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6680 ROBERT PAIGE-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; G. J. HAYES; PAMELA ALSTON; BARRY J. ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-38-5-H) Submitted: August 5, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Paige-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Paige-El, a North Carolina inmate, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), alleging prison officials searched his locker and discarded his legal books and papers and his religious books. Paige-El appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2000). While we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, see Paige-El v. Beck, No. CA-03-38-5-H (E.D. N.C. March 25, 2003), we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED - 2 -