UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHATEEK AMIN BILAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SERGEANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT

VANBUREN; SERGEANT OAKES; GUARD

NORWOOD; GUARD IRBY; GUARD

WILLIAMS; GUARD MAGNUM; GUARD

JONES; GUARD MCMILLION; GUARD

CORDELL,

Defendants-Appellees,

and  No. 03-6642 GEORGE CURRIE, Superintendent;

RICKY DUKE, Assistant

Superintendent; JEANNIE LANCASTER;

HAROLD PERSON; MICHAEL MUNNS;

LIEUTENANT RYAN; LAWRENCE

SOLOMON, Assistant Superintendent;

DAVID A. CARROLL, Sergeant;

SERGEANT WESLEY; SERGEANT SMITH;

RANDALL LEE, Administrator of

Caledonia Correctional Institution;

JOY BAREFOOT, Programs Manager at

Central Prison,

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CA-02-9-5-H)

Argued: May 7, 2004

Decided: August 12, 2004
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

Pasco M. BOWMAN, Senior Circuit Judge of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,

sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Pepin A. Tuma, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia,

Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.

James Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Roy Cooper, Attorney General

of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Shateek Amin Bilal appeals from adverse rulings made in the Eastern District of North Carolina in this § 1983 proceeding. Specifically,

Bilal maintains that the court erred in its Order of November 4, 2002,

dismissing without prejudice his claims that several North Carolina

correctional officers and their supervisors (the "Defendants") censored his mail and denied him access to the courts, in violation of the

First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Bilal v. Currie, No. 62 Civ.

02-CT-9 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2002). Bilal also contends that the court

erred in its subsequent Order of April 1, 2003, awarding summary

2 BILAL v. SMITH
judgment to the Defendants on his Eighth Amendment claims of

excessive force and unlawful restraint. See Bilal v. Currie, No. 70

Civ. 02-CT-9 (E.D.N.C. April 1, 2003). 

Having thoroughly considered the record and the issues raised by

Bilal at argument and in his pro se and counselled written submissions, we are content to affirm the court’s rulings. Bilal’s First and

Fourteenth Amendment claims were appropriately dismissed without

prejudice to allow him an opportunity to exhaust his administrative

remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (providing that no § 1983 action

shall be brought with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available have been exhausted). And as the

court correctly determined, the Defendants were entitled to summary

judgment on Bilal’s Eighth Amendment claims because his injuries

were de minimis and no extraordinary circumstances were present.

See Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1263 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc)

(recognizing that, absent extraordinary circumstances, plaintiff suffering de minimis injuries cannot prevail under Eighth Amendment).

Because we perceive no reversible error in the challenged rulings, we

affirm the court’s judgment in all respects.

AFFIRMED

BILAL v. SMITH 3