Gantt-El v. Bennett

Filing 920070209


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7904 GEORGE W. GANTT-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOYD BENNETT; RICK JACKSON; PAULA Y. SMITH; NURSE CARELOCKE; HARDESTY, Correctional Officer; SERGEANT MARSHALL; WALRUTH, Nurse; HILDRETH, Nurse; DAVIS, Correctional Officer; NICHOLS, DHO; ALLAN A. JACKSON, DHO; PARSON, Correctional Officer; WEBSTER, Correctional Officer; PITTMAN, Correctional Officer; FREELAND, Correctional Officer; WILSON, Correctional Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; RATLIFF; NURSE BRYS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00392) Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: February 9, 2007 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George W. Gantt-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: George W. Gantt-El appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint and supplemental complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000) and denying relief on his subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment. and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the Gantt-El v. Bennett, No. reasons stated by the district court. 3:06-cv-00392 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2006; filed Oct. 25 & entered Oct. 26, 2006). We further deny Gantt-El's motion for injunction and to show cause. 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 - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?