Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Capers v. Clark, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carl Lorinzo Caper's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Capers v. Clark, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carl Lorinzo Caper's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-06-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6257

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carl Lorinzo Caper's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views2 pages

    Capers v. Clark, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carl Lorinzo Caper's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court had dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6257

    CARL LORINZO CAPERS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CLARK,
    Kitchen
    Dietician;
    HARRINGTON,
    Kitchen
    Dietician;
    BULLOCK, Unit Superintendent; RICHARD NEELY, Supervisor of
    Administrations; EDITH WALRATH, Medical Supervisor; ALDRIDGE;
    KORY DALRYMPLE; LAWRENCE PARSONS,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00048-RJC)

    Submitted:

    May 26, 2011

    Decided:

    June 1, 2011

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Carl Lorinzo Capers, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Carl Lorinzo Capers appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
    1915A(b) (2006).

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    Capers v. Clark, No. 3:11-cv-00048-RJC

    by the district court.


    (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2011).

    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