Robert Russell v. Guilford County Municipality

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00831-TDS-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999556137]. Mailed to: Robert Russell. [14-7662]

Appeal: 14-7662

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7662

ROBERT KITHER RUSSELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GUILFORD COUNTY MUNICIPALITY; HIGH POINT COURT HOUSE; JUDGE
HENRY FRYE; JAMES GREEN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00831-TDS-LPA)

Submitted:

March 24, 2015

Decided:

March 31, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Kither Russell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7662

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert Kither Russell appeals the district court’s order
adopting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012).
the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed
We

conclude

that

Russell’s claim is not cognizable because his state conviction
has not been overturned or called into question.

See Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see also Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (applying Heck to claims of
equitable relief).

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the

reasons stated by the district court, see Russell v. Guilford
Cnty. Mun., No. 1:14-cv-00831-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2014),
but we

modify

Russell

may

the

refile

dismissal
his

to

claims

be

without

should

invalidated by the appropriate court.

his

prejudice
conviction

because
ever

be

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 AS MODIFIED

2