Benjamin A Joyner v. Sharon Patterson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:13-cv-02675-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999549120]. Mailed to: Joyner. [14-7432]

Appeal: 14-7432

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7432

BENJAMIN A. JOYNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHARON PATTERSON, disciplinary hearing officer; MIKE MCCALL,
Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; LINDA JOHNSON, Inmate
Grievance Coordinator; ANN HALLMAN, Chief Inmate Grievance
Branch; B. REAMES, Classification Case Manager; MS. MCNAIR,
Administrative Segregation Case Manager; WILLIAM R. BYARS,
Agency Director; JAMES E. SLEIGH, Division Director of
Operations; JAMES C. DEAN, Major of Security; OFFICER
LOCKLEAR, Security; SARGEANT ROACH, Security; LIEUTENANT
MILES, Security; ASSOCIATE WARDEN S. NOLAN. All defendants
except the Agency director is being sued in their individual
capacities. William R. Byars is being sued in his official
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(0:13-cv-02675-DCN)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-7432

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Benjamin Anthony Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7432

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Benjamin
accepting

A.

the

dismissing

his

Joyner

appeals

recommendation
42

U.S.C.

the

of

district

the

§ 1983

magistrate

(2012)

order

judge

complaint

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012).
the record and find no reversible error.

court’s

and

without

We have reviewed

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Joyner v.

Patterson, No. 0:13-cv-02675-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2014).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3