Filed: Nov. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6935 WILLIAM D. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN CROW, Administrator, Lincoln Correctional Center; RANDY S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; KAREN LOPOUS, Food Service; ROGER PATTERSON, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00015-FDW) Submitted: November 20, 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6935 WILLIAM D. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN CROW, Administrator, Lincoln Correctional Center; RANDY S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; KAREN LOPOUS, Food Service; ROGER PATTERSON, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00015-FDW) Submitted: November 20, 20..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6935
WILLIAM D. MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN CROW, Administrator, Lincoln Correctional Center; RANDY
S. MULL, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; KAREN LOPOUS, Food
Service; ROGER PATTERSON, Regional Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00015-FDW)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William D. Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William D. Moore appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Moore v. Crow, No. 5:14-cv-00015-FDW.
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