Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6002 JORGE GALEAS, JR., a/k/a Jorge Gevara, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FNU BYRD, Chaplain, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, Defendant - Appellee. 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-00543-RJC) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6002 JORGE GALEAS, JR., a/k/a Jorge Gevara, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FNU BYRD, Chaplain, Lanesboro Correctional Institution, Defendant - Appellee. 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-00543-RJC) Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6002
JORGE GALEAS, JR., a/k/a Jorge Gevara,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FNU BYRD, Chaplain, Lanesboro Correctional Institution,
Defendant - Appellee.
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-00543-RJC)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorge Galeas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Galeas, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (2006) as malicious. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Galeas v. FNU Byrd,
No. 3:11-cv-00543-RJC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 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