Sweeting v. McCabe , 141 F. App'x 177 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6468
GARY SWEETING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Correctional Administrator
at Harnett Correctional Institution; JERRY
MCQUEEN, Screening Officer at Harnett
Correctional Institution; NORMA WOOD, Case
Worker/Manager at Harnett Correctional
Institution; J. BAKER WILLIAMS, D.O.C.
Resolution Board Examiner; GEROTHA R. SPAIN,
D.O.C. Resolution Board Examiner; RON
MIRIELLO, Vice President for Education and
Student Support Services; DANIEL THOMAS,
Education Director for Central Carolina
Community College (CCCC) at HCI,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CA-05-13-5-BO)
Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Sweeting, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gary Sweeting appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that
this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court.* See Sweeting v. McCabe, No. CA-05-13-5-BO
(E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2005). 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
*
In addition to seeking review of the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint, Sweeting also asserts on appeal that he
was not provided with the opportunity to amend his pleading, as
requested in his complaint. Generally, a pro se litigant’s
pleadings should be construed liberally to avoid inequity and the
complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him
to relief. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978). Leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given when
justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), although the decision
to grant leave rests within the sound discretion of the district
court. Medigen of Ky., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W.Va., 985
F.2d 164, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1993). If a pro se complaint contains
a potentially cognizable claim, the plaintiff should be given an
opportunity to particularize his allegations. See Coleman v.
Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965) (per curiam). Because
Sweeting failed to state a potentially cognizable claim, the
district court did not err when it denied Sweeting the opportunity
to particularize or amend his complaint.
- 3 -