Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7193 KENNETH EUGENE CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; TOM CHANDLER, CFCI, Defendants - Appellees, and WARDEN DAVID BALLARD, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03743) Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7193 KENNETH EUGENE CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; TOM CHANDLER, CFCI, Defendants - Appellees, and WARDEN DAVID BALLARD, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03743) Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7193
KENNETH EUGENE CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; TOM CHANDLER, CFCI,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WARDEN DAVID BALLARD,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-03743)
Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Eugene Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly M. Bandy, Natalie C. Schaefer,
SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Eugene Carter appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carter v. Div. of
Corr., No. 2:17-cv-03743 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 13, 2018). 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