Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07662/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07662-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7662

ROBERT KITHER RUSSELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GUILFORD COUNTY MUNICIPALITY; HIGH POINT COURT HOUSE; JUDGE 

HENRY FRYE; JAMES GREEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00831-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: March 24, 2015 Decided: March 31, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Kither Russell, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7662 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Kither Russell appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint as frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. We conclude that 

Russell’s claim is not cognizable because his state conviction 

has not been overturned or called into question. See Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see also Wilkinson v. 

Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (applying Heck to claims of 

equitable relief). Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court, see Russell v. Guilford 

Cnty. Mun., No. 1:14-cv-00831-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2014), 

but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice because 

Russell may refile his claims should his conviction ever be 

invalidated by the appropriate court. 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 AS MODIFIED

Appeal: 14-7662 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pg: 2 of 2