Ricardo Lanier v. Linda Corn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00262-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000326409]. Mailed to: Ricardo Lanier and Katherine R. Hilkey-Boyatt. [17-7505]

Appeal: 17-7505

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/10/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7505

RICARDO EDWIN LANIER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LINDA CORN, Officer; BRIAN HELTON, Sgt.; FNU MCDONALD, Lt.; JIM
PLAYER, Captain; CHRISTY ADAMS, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
HENDERSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Jail Officials on duty day of
incident, et al; FLORA HERNANDEZ, Head Nurse,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00262-FDW)

Submitted: June 19, 2018

Decided: July 10, 2018

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 17-7505

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/10/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Ricardo Edwin Lanier, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-7505

Doc: 28

Filed: 07/10/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Edwin Lanier appeals the district court’s order granting Appellees’
motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s dismissal of Lanier’s claims against Appellees McDonald,
Helton, Corn, and Adams for the reasons stated by the district court, and we affirm the
district court’s dismissal of the claims against Appellee Player on the basis that Lanier
failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to inhumane conditions rising to the level of a
Fourteenth Amendment violation. Lanier v. Corn, No. 1:15-cv-00262-FDW (W.D.N.C.
Nov. 6, 2017). 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