Duncan Burress v. Timothy Perkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-01970. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999404726]. Mailed to: Duncan Burress. [14-6542]

Appeal: 14-6542

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6542

DUNCAN LAMARR BURRESS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY PERKINS, Correctional Officer II; JOSHUA HYPES,
Correctional Officer; JEREMY ARBOGAST, Correctional Officer;
CHAD SISK, Correctional Officer; JESSE FOSTER, Correctional
Officer; CHARLES LEGG, Correctional Officer, Lieutenant
Shift Commander for Quilliams II; PAUL PARRY, Assistant
Warden
Security;
DAVID
BALLARD,
Warden;
GARY
HINTE,
Investigator
Intelligence
Officer;
JOHNATHAN
FRAME,
Institutional
Investigator;
CURTIS
DIXON,
Sergeant,
Institutional Investigator; ROBERT RHODES, Major, Chief
Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-01970)

Submitted:

July 24, 2014

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 29, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duncan Lamarr Burress, Appellant Pro Se.
Natalie
C.
Schaefer,
SHUMAN,
MCCUSKEY

Kimberly M. Bandy,
&
SLICER,
PLLC,

Appeal: 14-6542

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-6542

Doc: 18

Filed: 07/29/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Duncan

Lamarr

Burress

appeals

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
20,

Burress v. Perkins, No. 2:13-cv-01970 (S.D.W. Va. Mar.

2014;

Mar.

21,

2014).

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

3