Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6257 CARL LORINZO CAPERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLARK, Kitchen Dietician; HARRINGTON, Kitchen Dietician; BULLOCK, Unit Superintendent; RICHARD NEELY, Supervisor of Administrations; EDITH WALRATH, Medical Supervisor; ALDRIDGE; KORY DALRYMPLE; LAWRENCE PARSONS, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief Distric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6257 CARL LORINZO CAPERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLARK, Kitchen Dietician; HARRINGTON, Kitchen Dietician; BULLOCK, Unit Superintendent; RICHARD NEELY, Supervisor of Administrations; EDITH WALRATH, Medical Supervisor; ALDRIDGE; KORY DALRYMPLE; LAWRENCE PARSONS, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6257
CARL LORINZO CAPERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLARK, Kitchen Dietician; HARRINGTON, Kitchen Dietician;
BULLOCK, Unit Superintendent; RICHARD NEELY, Supervisor of
Administrations; EDITH WALRATH, Medical Supervisor; ALDRIDGE;
KORY DALRYMPLE; LAWRENCE PARSONS,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00048-RJC)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Lorinzo Capers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Lorinzo Capers appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Capers v. Clark, No. 3:11-cv-00048-RJC
(W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2011). 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
2