Filed: Feb. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7443 JAMES DAVID WESLEY CARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden; NICKY SEIFERT, Unit Manager; DAVID BALLARD, Warden, M.O.C.C.; JOHN P. SULLIVAN, P.D.; DON MORRIS, D.A.; DAVID PROCTOR, M.D., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00040-GMG-JSK) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: F
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7443 JAMES DAVID WESLEY CARR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden; NICKY SEIFERT, Unit Manager; DAVID BALLARD, Warden, M.O.C.C.; JOHN P. SULLIVAN, P.D.; DON MORRIS, D.A.; DAVID PROCTOR, M.D., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00040-GMG-JSK) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: Fe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7443
JAMES DAVID WESLEY CARR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden; NICKY SEIFERT, Unit Manager; DAVID
BALLARD, Warden, M.O.C.C.; JOHN P. SULLIVAN, P.D.; DON
MORRIS, D.A.; DAVID PROCTOR, M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00040-GMG-JSK)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James David Wesley Carr, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James David Wesley Carr appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Carr v. Seifert, No. 3:13-cv-00040-
GMG-JSK (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 21, 2013). 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
2