Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mayfield v. Fleming, 01-7602 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7602 Visitors: 30
Filed: Apr. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7602 CURTIS LEE MAYFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; P. A. TERRANGI, Warden; M. PORCHER, Therapeutic Community Director; L. CORNERS, Assistant Warden of Programs; J. JONES, Clinical Social Worker; S. SNYDER, Clinical Social Worker; J. LEWIS, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Brya
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7602 CURTIS LEE MAYFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; P. A. TERRANGI, Warden; M. PORCHER, Therapeutic Community Director; L. CORNERS, Assistant Warden of Programs; J. JONES, Clinical Social Worker; S. SNYDER, Clinical Social Worker; J. LEWIS, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1773-AM) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Mayfield, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Mayfield appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Mayfield was a prisoner in the Therapeutic Community at the Indian Creek Correctional Center (“ICCC”). As the district court noted, Mayfield is no longer a prisoner in that facility; consequently, his claim for injunctive relief is moot. Mayfield v. Fleming, No. CA-00-1773-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2001). Further, the district court correctly concluded that Mayfield’s claim for money damages is barred because he can show no physical injury. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(e) (West Supp. 2001). Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment against Mayfield. 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
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