DILLARD v. PERRY (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Thomas T. DILLARD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY; W. David Guice; George Solomon; Paula Y. Smith; Marshall Pike; Jasmine T. Belyew; Jonnita Baker; Howard Belk; A. Barnes; Litonya Carter; Gail Bieber; Warden Joyner; S. White; Mike Ball; Mike Slagle; Cynthia Thornton; Thomas Asbell; Sheila Greene; Asst. Superintendent Tomlinson; K. Dalrymple; Jason Penland; Lauren Harrell; D. Gibbs; C. Hernandez; Paula Page; David May; Claudia Jones; Tim Jones; J. Driggers; Program Supervisor Buchanan; G. Garner; Unit Manager Crowe; Asst. Unit Manager Green; F. Speer; Nurse Pittman; Nurse Melton; Hope Smith; Doctor Umesi; Francesca Shon; Nurse Wolfe; Nurse Buchanan; Rashia L. Norman; Scarlett R. Aswell; Crissy H. Smith; P. G. Chrisawn; P. Kirby; Case Manager Nivens; B. Lide; L. Norris; Case Manager Hughes; J. G. Duckworth; Transfer Coordinator Rudisill; J. Cannon; Carrie Tucker; Gary Junker; Kristie Stanback; Jeffrey Fields; G. Crutchfield; Program Supervisor Stewart; T. Lockamy; Dr. Lightsey; T. Deal; K. Fairley; Nurse Gil; Georgia Bryant; Sergeant Webb; Nurse Garner; Nicole Spruell; Erik A. Hooks; John/Jane Doe, Pharmacy Supervisor; John/Jane Doe, Medical Supervisor; John/Jane Doe, Case Manager; John/Jane Doe, Social Worker; John/Jane Doe, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-7263

Decided: January 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Thomas T. Dillard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas T. Dillard, Jr. appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dillard v. Perry, No. 5:17-ct-03119-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017 & Aug. 10, 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law