Nathaniel Rice v. Daymon Byrd ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6288
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DAYMON BYRD, Senior Officer; OFFICER HIGHLANDER; OFFICER
QUINN; OFFICER MCHENRY; LIEUTENANT VARGAS,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
OFFICER JOHN DOE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; OFFICER
SINGLETON; OFFICER O’BRYANT; LIEUTENANT WRIGHT; LIEUTENANT
CRADDOCK; LIEUTENANT MURPHY; LIEUTENANT GERALD; UNIT
MANAGER CAMACHO; ASSOCIATE WARDEN HISCOCKS; COUNSELOR
HOPKINS; COUNSEL LASSITER; COUNSELOR DAUGHETY; COUNSEL
BROOKS; PA DERRY; PA LECURIE; PA/OFFICER CANADA; NURSE
CARTER; OFFICER TORRES; OFFICER KELLER; OFFICER ROCK;
OFFICER MCGEE; OFFICER GOOLSBY; OFFICER ANDERSONMIC;
OFFICER SMITHWILL; OFFICER NEWSOME; OFFICER SANFORD;
OFFICER STATEN; OFFICER ARIAS; OFFICER GLASS; OFFICER KLUX;
OFFICER PERRY; OFFICER BULLOCK; OFFICER WOODS; OFFICER
FANUEF; MID-ATLANTIC REMEDY COORDINATOR; CENTRAL OFFICE
COORDINATOR; ADMINISTRATOR COORDINATOR, at Butner FCI 2;
ADMINISTRATOR COORDINATOR, at Talladega FCI; HEALTH
SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR; ASSISTANT HEALTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR KILPATRICK; REGIONAL DIRECTOR, in official
capacity; GENERAL COUNSEL, in official capacity; DIRECTOR
OF BUREAU OF PRISONS, in official capacity; FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03218-BO)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley,
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Dante Rice appeals the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Rice v. Byrd, No. 5:11-ct-03218-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21,
2013 & Feb. 12, 2015). 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