Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-11-06116/USCOURTS-ca4-11-06116-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 11-6116

CHARLES M. CASSELL, III,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DAWKINS; QUEEN, Officer; JOHN DOES, Shift Sergeants on Red 

Unit Lock Up,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (5:10-cv-00191-RJC)

Submitted: January 27, 2015 Decided: February 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6116 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Cassell appeals from the district court’s 

order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

(2012). One of the cases identified by the district court as 

qualifying as a “strike” under § 1915(g) was Cassell v. Grant, 

No. 2:04-cv-348 (S.D. Oh. May 3, 2004). Subsequent to entry of 

the district court’s order, we held that, for a dismissal to 

qualify as a “strike” under § 1915(g), the entire action must be 

dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a 

claim. Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646 (4th Cir. 2011). 

Grant was dismissed partly on statute of limitations grounds and 

partly for failure to state a claim. Under Tolbert, Grant does 

not qualify as a strike. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of 

the district court and remand for further proceedings. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the material before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*

VACATED AND REMANDED

 * On May 20, 2011, we entered an order identifying Cassell 

as a three-striker and ordering him to pay the filing fee in 

this appeal. Cassell moved for reconsideration, and we denied 

the motion on July 26, 2011. Subsequently, we discovered that

we had improperly designated Cassell as a three-striker. We 

then granted Cassell’s motion to reopen this appeal and to 

proceed under the PLRA without prepayment of fees. 

Appeal: 11-6116 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 2