Perkins v. Beeler

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7352
VICTOR PERKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN A. F. BEELER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District
Judge. (5:06-ct-03060-BO)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: December 1, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victor Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Perkins appeals a district court order and judgment
summarily dismissing his civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) (2000) because he had three prior actions that were
dismissed as frivolous. Dismissal under the three strikes provision
of § 1915(g) is reserved for those persons defined as prisoners.
Perkins is civilly committed and not considered a prisoner. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(h) (2000); Michau v. Charleston County, S.C., 434 F.3d
725, 727 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2936 (2006).
Despite the fact that the dismissal under § 1915(g) was
improper, we affirm on alternate reasoning. See United States v.
Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding that court is not
limited to grounds offered by district court for its decision but
may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record). Perkins’
complaint is clearly frivolous as he failed to state a claim of
cruel and unusual punishment or deliberate indifference to medical
needs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2000).
Accordingly, we grant Perkins’ motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
- 2 -