Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06703/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06703-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6703

JOHN C. PHELPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary of the State of North Carolina 

Department of Public Safety; NICOLE E. SULLIVAN, Director of 

Prisons of the State of North Carolina Department of Public 

Safety; JACKIE PARKER, Chief of Food Services for the State 

of North Carolina Department of Public Safety; SUSAN R. 

WHITE, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional 

Institution; MICHAEL SLAGLE, Assistant Superintendent of 

Programs at Mountain View Correctional Institution; MR. 

LEDFORD, Food Service Manager at Mountain View Correctional 

Institution; MS. N. MELTON, Acting Head Nurse at Mountain 

View Correctional Institution, Each Defendant Being Sued 

Individually and in Their Official Capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00133-FDW)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6703 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

John C. Phelps, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6703 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

John C. Phelps appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint after 

the district court dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012), for failure to state a claim. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Phelps v. Perry, No. 1:14-cv-00133 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-6703 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/25/2015 Pg: 3 of 3