Murphy-Barber v. Murray ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-6247
    BETTY JEAN MURPHY-BARBER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    J. J. MURRAY, Camp Administrator; PATRICIA
    PEOPLES; WARDEN HADDEN; BUREAU OF PRISONS,
    Agency of the Department of Justice,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District
    Judge. (CA-95-1030-BR)
    Submitted:   June 20, 1996                  Decided:   July 1, 1996
    Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Betty Jean Murphy-Barber, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
    her civil rights action as frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (d)
    (1988). In her complaint, Appellant alleged a discriminatory and
    retaliatory institutional transfer, deliberate indifference to
    serious medical needs, denial of access to courts, and denial of
    the right to have prejudicial erroneous information removed from
    her prison file. The district court properly dismissed the claims
    against Patricia Peoples and Bureau of Prisons because they are not
    persons subject to suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
    Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971).
    The district court dismissed the remaining claims as frivolous
    under § 1915(d), based on Appellant's failure to allege certain
    facts or to support her claims with evidence. Because Appellant
    may be able to particularize her complaint to state non-frivolous
    claims arising from the events described in the complaint, see
    Coleman v. Peyton, 
    340 F.2d 603
    , 604 (4th Cir. 1965), we modify the
    district court's order to reflect that the dismissal is without
    prejudice and affirm that disposition. 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 AS MODIFIED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-6247

Filed Date: 7/1/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021