Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Richard Mays v. Keith Whitener, 15-7500 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-7500 Visitors: 35
Filed: Feb. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7500 RICHARD T. MAYS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. KEITH WHITENER, Superintendent; DANNY FREEMAN, Unit Manager; TONI BANKS, Assistant Unit Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00268-FDW) Submitted: February 16, 2016 Decided: February 23, 2016 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-7500


RICHARD T. MAYS,

                Plaintiff – Appellant,

          v.

KEITH   WHITENER,   Superintendent;  DANNY   FREEMAN,         Unit
Manager; TONI BANKS, Assistant Unit Manager,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00268-FDW)


Submitted:   February 16, 2016          Decided:   February 23, 2016


Before KEENAN and     DIAZ,   Circuit   Judges,    and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard T. Mays, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Richard    T.     Mays    appeals    the   district     court’s     order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2012).       We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error.      Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.         Mays v. Whitener, No. 1:14-cv-00268-FDW

(W.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2015).         We deny Mays’ motion for injunction,

and 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer