WRIGHT v. RICH RDU RDU (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Kayie Shaune DeVore WRIGHT, a/k/a Kayie Shaune Wright, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher RICH, Director of Security Risk Group, in official and supervisory capacities; Herbert Corpening, (“Hebert Corperning”) Superintendent/Warden of Marion Correctional Institution, in official, individual and supervisory capacities; Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent of Marion Correctional Institution, in official, individual, and supervisory capacities; David Cotherin, Assistant Superintendent of Programs, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; Julia Jenkins, Program Director of RDU, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; Gregory Swink, Program Director of RDU, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; Robert T. Barker, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, in official and individual capacities; Murphy, Psychiatrist, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; Adam Hergenrother, S.R.G. in official and individual capacities; Nichols, “[J.] Nichols” S.R.G., in official and individual capacities; Todd E. Ishee, Director of Prisons, in official and supervisory capacities; Long, [Captain] of S.R.G., in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; Surrat, Lieutenant of S.R.G., in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; Taylor, Sergeant of S.R.G, in individual and official capacities; Christopher Curtis, Assistant Unit Manager, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-7428

Decided: February 19, 2021

Before KING, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Kayie Shaune DeVore Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Kayie Shaune DeVore Wright appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.^* Wright v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-00146-FDW (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6 & June 2, 2020). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. Even if we consider Wright's challenge to prison strip searches as arising under the Eighth Amendment, rather than the Fourth Amendment, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

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