Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carlton Clay v. Carl Manis, 16-6315 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6315 Visitors: 31
Filed: Oct. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6315 CARLTON CLAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CARL MANIS, Warden/Administrator; J.A. HARMON, Institutional Hearing Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00036-AWA-LRL) Submitted: October 19, 2016 Decided: October 24, 2016 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6315


CARLTON CLAY,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

CARL MANIS, Warden/Administrator; J.A. HARMON, Institutional
Hearing Officer,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:16-cv-00036-AWA-LRL)


Submitted:   October 19, 2016             Decided:   October 24, 2016


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carlton Clay, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Carlton Clay 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.         See Clay v. Manis, No. 2:16-cv-00036-AWA-LRL

(E.D.    Va.    Feb.   16,   2016).   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

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