Case ID: f-appx_232/html/0358-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanley Earl CORBETT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Officer TAYLOR, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in individual and official capacity; Officer Stapleton, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in individual and official capacity; Officer Houston, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued individual and official capacity; Officer Fisher, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in individual and official capacity; Officer Roland, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in individual and official capacity; Officer Patterson, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution sued, in individual and official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-6442.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2007.
    Decided: July 11, 2007.
    Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Stanley E. Corbett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find that the undisputed facts do not support an inference that the officers’ use of force was malicious or wanton. Because we find as a matter of law that their conduct does not satisfy the subjective requirement of an Eighth Amendment violation, we do not reach the objective requirement. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-8, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for that reason. See Corbett v. Taylor, No. 0:06-cv-00229, 2007 WL 586711 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2007). We deny Corbett’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.