Filed: Aug. 30, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6592 CURTIS D. SHULER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD NEELY, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; C. W. CLARK, Supervisor, Food Management, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; J. BENNETT, Supervisor, Programs, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, 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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6592 CURTIS D. SHULER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD NEELY, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; C. W. CLARK, Supervisor, Food Management, Lanesboro Correctional Institution; J. BENNETT, Supervisor, Programs, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, 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UNPUBLISHED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. 11-6592
CURTIS D. SHULER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD NEELY, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional
Institution; C. W. CLARK, Supervisor, Food Management,
Lanesboro Correctional Institution; J. BENNETT, Supervisor,
Programs, Lanesboro Correctional Institution,
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-00182-RJC)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis D. Shuler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis D. Shuler 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 conclude
there is no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Shuler v. Neely, No.
3:11-cv-00182-RJC (W.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 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