White v. Smith

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6403
MAURICE WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
L. SMITH; T. BENNETT; KRISTIE BENNETT; J.
KELLY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-05-63)
Submitted: May 18, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice White seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.
Among other things, White contends that the staff at Lanesboro
Correctional Institution violated his constitutional rights by
failing to place him in protective custody as an informant. White
asserts that prison staff were aware that there was a contract out
on his life, and they have not housed him properly, or ensured that
his food was not poisoned.
We conclude that while many of White’s claims were
properly deemed conclusory or frivolous, it is not entirely clear
from the record that all of White’s claims are wholly frivolous, as
the district court suggests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). For
example, White’s claim that Defendants failed to place him in
protective custody might present an arguable basis in the Eighth
Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennen, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)
(holding that to establish deliberate indifference, a prisoner must
present evidence to show that the Defendants intentionally ignored
a known risk of harm.). Accordingly, we modify the district
court’s order to reflect a dismissal of White’s complaint without
prejudice. 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 -