Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Billups v. Lofton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Clarence Billups under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Virginia Department of Corrections officials. The district court had dismissed Billups' complaint as frivolous because he had previously brought the same claims against the same defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that Billups' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that his allegations of negligence did not support a § 1983 claim. The Fourth Circuit also denied Billups' motions for oral argument and appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-10-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6726

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Clarence Billups under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Virginia Department of Corrections officials. The district court had dismissed Billups' complaint as frivolous because he had previously brought the same claims against the same defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that Billups' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that his allegations of negligence did not support a § 1983 claim. The Fourth Circuit also denied Billups' motions for oral argument and appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    19 views3 pages

    Billups v. Lofton, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a case brought by Clarence Billups under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Virginia Department of Corrections officials. The district court had dismissed Billups' complaint as frivolous because he had previously brought the same claims against the same defendants. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that Billups' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that his allegations of negligence did not support a § 1983 claim. The Fourth Circuit also denied Billups' motions for oral argument and appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6726

    CLARENCE BILLUPS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    J.
    P.
    LOFTON,
    Correctional
    Officer
    of
    Department of Corrections, Supervisor of Paint
    Crew; KENT GRANT, Safety Officer, Department
    of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Chief of
    Security; LIEUTENANT THOMAS, Watch Commander,
    Department of Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE,
    Warden, Department of Corrections,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
    Judge. (CA-03-420-AM)

    Submitted:

    October 3, 2003

    Decided:

    October 24, 2003

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Clarence Billups, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Clarence Billups appeals the district courts order dismissing
    his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
    1915A(b)(1) (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error.
    We review dismissals under 1915A de novo.
    Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002).

    See Veney v.

    The district court

    dismissed Billupss 1983 complaint as frivolous because it had


    previously dismissed a claim filed by him based on the same issues
    and brought against the same defendants.
    03-CV-71 (E.D. Va. Feb 3, 2003).

    See Billups v. Lofton,

    Billups did not appeal the

    disposition of this earlier dismissal.


    We

    find

    that

    Billupss

    1983

    claim

    is

    barred

    by

    the

    applicable two-year statute of limitations for personal injury


    actions in Virginia.

    See Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 384 (4th

    Cir. 2002); see also VA. CODE ANN. 8.01-243.

    Moreover, his claims

    of negligence on the part of the defendants do not support recovery


    under 1983.

    See Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 236 (4th Cir.

    2001); see also Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999).
    Thus,

    we

    find

    that

    the

    district

    courts

    dismissal

    under

    1915A(b)(1) was proper, and we affirm the district courts order


    on the modified grounds noted herein.

    We also deny Billupss

    motions for oral argument and for appointment of counsel.

    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

    You might also like