Fred Douty v. David Ballard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-24714. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645757]. Mailed to: Fred Douty. [15-6484]

Appeal: 15-6484

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6484

FRED D. DOUTY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex; PAUL
PERRY, Associate Warden of Security, Mt. Olive Correctional
Complex; STEVE CAUDILL, Captain, Mt. Olive Correctional
Complex; RONNIE WILLIAMS, Captain, Mt. Olive Correctional
Complex; CHRIS BLAKE, Principal, Mt. Olive Correctional
Complex; JAMES PENNINGTON, Educational Instructor, Mt. Olive
Correctional Complex; and; MIKE CLEMENS, Case Manager, Mt.
Olive Correctional Complex; are sued in their individual and
official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:13-cv-24714)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred D. Douty, Appellant Pro Se.
John Herbert Boothroyd, WEST
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia;
Greg S. Foster, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West

Appeal: 15-6484

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6484

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Fred D. Douty 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 and denying Douty’s motion
to amend his amended complaint.
find

no

reversible

error.

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.
2:13-cv-24714 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2015).

we

affirm

for

the

Douty v. Ballard, No.
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