Pierce v. King

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6450
RICKY A. PIERCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT KING; SERGEANT BOYD;
SERGEANT CHEEKS; SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAMS;
LIEUTENANT BURROUGHS; OFFICER CANNIE; OFFICER
SMITH, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; CASE-
WORKER JEFFERIES,
Defendants - Appellees,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor.
No. 96-7061
RICKY A. PIERCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT KING; SERGEANT BOYD;
SERGEANT CHEEKS; SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAMS;
LIEUTENANT BURROUGHS; OFFICER CANNIE; OFFICER
SMITH, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; CASE-
WORKER JEFFERIES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-94-523-5-BO)
Argued: October 3, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and MAGILL, Senior
Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Neal Lawrence Walters, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNI-
VERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia; Seth
Michael Galanter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. William Dennis Worley, Assistant Attorney
General, Ronald Moore Marquette, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUS-
TICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Michael F.
Easley, Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Ricky A. Pierce, a disabled inmate at the Tillery Correctional
Center in North Carolina, appeals from a decision of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, officials
employed by the North Carolina Department of Corrections. Pierce
alleges a violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165. For the reasons
stated in Amos v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correc-
tional Services, No. 96-7091, 1997 WL 581652 (Sept. 22, 1997), we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
3