Perkins v. Beeler , 207 F. App'x 262 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7352
    VICTOR PERKINS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN A. F. BEELER,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District
    Judge. (5:06-ct-03060-BO)
    Submitted:    October 31, 2006               Decided:   December 1, 2006
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Victor Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Victor Perkins appeals a district court order and judgment
    summarily dismissing his civil rights complaint under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g) (2000) because he had three prior actions that were
    dismissed as frivolous. Dismissal under the three strikes provision
    of § 1915(g) is reserved for those persons defined as prisoners.
    Perkins is civilly committed and not considered a prisoner.   See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (h) (2000); Michau v. Charleston County, S.C., 
    434 F.3d 725
    , 727 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 2936
     (2006).
    Despite the fact that the dismissal under § 1915(g) was
    improper, we affirm on alternate reasoning.    See United States v.
    Smith, 
    395 F.3d 516
    , 519 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding that court is not
    limited to grounds offered by district court for its decision but
    may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record).        Perkins’
    complaint is clearly frivolous as he failed to state a claim of
    cruel and unusual punishment or deliberate indifference to medical
    needs.   See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2000).
    Accordingly, we grant Perkins’ motion to proceed in forma
    pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7352

Citation Numbers: 207 F. App'x 262

Judges: Michael, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/1/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024