Locklear v. Perry, (4th Cir. 2001)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6501 BERRY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PERRY; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER FOUNTAIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BOONE;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARRIS; SEBASTIAN
MITCHELL; FURMAN CAMEL, Defendants - Appellees, and
PAM BOWES; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GAINER; COR-
RECTIONAL OFFICER JOHNSON; CORRECTIONAL OF-
FICER STONE; JOHN DOE, various John Doe
defendants, including Sargeant John Doe, and
John Doe, Medical Administrator, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-385-5-BO)
Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Berry Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assis-
tant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Berry Locklear appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint in which he alleged application of excessive force. The record discloses he suffered de minimis injury. See Norman v. Taylor ,25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Because Locklear has not alleged extraordinary circumstances warranting relief, we conclude summary judgment was appropriate. We deny Locklear’s motion to view a videotape contained in the record and affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Sponsored links
