Billups v. Lofton ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6726
CLARENCE BILLUPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. P. LOFTON, Correctional Officer of
Department of Corrections, Supervisor of Paint
Crew; KENT GRANT, Safety Officer, Department
of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Chief of
Security; LIEUTENANT THOMAS, Watch Commander,
Department of Corrections; ALTON BASKERVILLE,
Warden, Department of Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-420-AM)
Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: October 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Billups, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Billups appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error.
We review dismissals under § 1915A de novo. See Veney v.
Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002). The district court
dismissed Billups’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous because it had
previously dismissed a claim filed by him based on the same issues
and brought against the same defendants. See Billups v. Lofton,
03-CV-71 (E.D. Va. Feb 3, 2003). Billups did not appeal the
disposition of this earlier dismissal.
We find that Billups’s § 1983 claim is barred by the
applicable two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
actions in Virginia. See Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 384 (4th
Cir. 2002); see also VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-243. Moreover, his claims
of negligence on the part of the defendants do not support recovery
under § 1983. See Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 236 (4th Cir.
2001); see also Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999).
Thus, we find that the district court’s dismissal under
§ 1915A(b)(1) was proper, and we affirm the district court’s order
on the modified grounds noted herein. We also deny Billups’s
motions for oral argument and for appointment of counsel. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3