Overman v. Stevens, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7114 JOHN MARVIN OVERMAN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARY STEVENS, Defendant - Appellee, and JUANITA H. BAKER; THEODIS BECK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-03-126-5-BO)

Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Marvin Overman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Marvin Overman, Jr., appeals the district court§ 1983 (2000) complaint.

Overman challenges certain facts contained in the file relied on by

the North Carolina Parole Commission. The district court ruled

against Overman on the ground that his complaint was time-barred.

Claims under § 1983 arising in North Carolina have a three-year

statute of limitations. NatÂ’l Adver. Co. v. City of Raleigh

, 947 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (4th Cir. 1991). The cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations commences “when the plaintiff

possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that

reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.” Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr.

, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). We conclude that Overman filed his complaint within three

years of obtaining sufficient facts to provoke his reasonable

inquiry, and the action is therefore timely filed. However, we hold that judgment was properly entered in favor of Baker, Stevens, and Beck. The information in OvermanÂ’s

file that he contends was false was not relied on to a

constitutionally significant degree. See

Paine v. Baker

, 595 F.2d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 1979) (“We hold . . . that in certain limited

circumstances a claim of constitutional magnitude is raised where

a prisoner alleges (1) that information is in his file, (2) that

- 3 - the information is false, and (3) that it is relied on to a

constitutionally significant degree.”). Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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

---