Filed: May 08, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7747 TERRY LYNN HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FNU HEDRICK, Correctional Officer; RICHARD D. THOMAS, Correctional Administrator; ADRIAN W. DELLINGER, Assistant Attorney General, N.C. Department of Justice; FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary of Correction, 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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7747 TERRY LYNN HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FNU HEDRICK, Correctional Officer; RICHARD D. THOMAS, Correctional Administrator; ADRIAN W. DELLINGER, Assistant Attorney General, N.C. Department of Justice; FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary of Correction, 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-..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7747
TERRY LYNN HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FNU HEDRICK, Correctional Officer; RICHARD D. THOMAS,
Correctional Administrator; ADRIAN W. DELLINGER, Assistant
Attorney General, N.C. Department of Justice; FRANK L.
PERRY, Secretary of Correction,
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-00098-FDW)
Submitted: April 29, 2015 Decided: May 8, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Lynn Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Lynn Harris 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. Harris v. Thomas, No. 5:14-cv-00098-FDW
(W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2014). 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