Case Name: Berry LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer PERRY; Correctional Officer Fountain; Correctional Officer Boone; Correctional Officer Harris; Sebastian Mitchell; Furman Camel, Defendants-Appellees, and Pam Bowes; Correctional Officer Gainer; Correctional Officer Johnson; Correctional Officer Stone; John Doe, various John Doe defendants, including Sargeant John Doe, and John Doe, Medical Administrator, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-26
Citations: 19 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 01-6501
Parties: Berry LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer PERRY; Correctional Officer Fountain; Correctional Officer Boone; Correctional Officer Harris; Sebastian Mitchell; Furman Camel, Defendants-Appellees, and Pam Bowes; Correctional Officer Gainer; Correctional Officer Johnson; Correctional Officer Stone; John Doe, various John Doe defendants, including Sargeant John Doe, and John Doe, Medical Administrator, Defendants.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 19
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Berry LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer PERRY; Correctional Officer Fountain; Correctional Officer Boone; Correctional Officer Harris; Sebastian Mitchell; Furman Camel, Defendants-Appellees, and Pam Bowes; Correctional Officer Gainer; Correctional Officer Johnson; Correctional Officer Stone; John Doe, various John Doe defendants, including Sargeant John Doe, and John Doe, Medical Administrator, Defendants.
No. 01-6501.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2001.
Decided Sept. 26, 2001.
Berry Locklear, pro se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Berry Locklear appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint in which he alleged application of excessive force. The record discloses he suffered de minimis injury. See Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir.1994) (en banc). Because Locklear has not alleged extraordinary circumstances warranting relief, we conclude summary judgment was appropriate. We deny Locklear's motion to view a videotape contained in the record and affirm. 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.