Case Name: Maurice WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. SMITH; T. Bennett; Kristie Bennett; J. Kelly, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-29
Citations: 140 F. App'x 464
Docket Number: No. 05-6403
Parties: Maurice WHITE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. L. SMITH; T. Bennett; Kristie Bennett; J. Kelly, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Maurice WHITE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. L. SMITH; T. Bennett; Kristie Bennett; J. Kelly, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-6403.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2005.
Decided: July 29, 2005.
Maurice White, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maurice White seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Among other things, White contends that the staff at Lanesboro Correctional Institution violated his constitutional rights by failing to place him in protective custody as an informant. White asserts that prison staff were aware that there was a contract out on his life, and they have not housed him properly, or ensured that his food was not poisoned.
We conclude that while many of White's claims were properly deemed conclusory or frivolous, it is not entirely clear from the record that all of White's claims are wholly frivolous, as the district court suggests. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). For example, White's claim that Defendants failed to place him in protective custody might present an arguable basis in the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (holding that to establish deliberate indifference, a prisoner must present evidence to show that the Defendants intentionally ignored a known risk of harm.). Accordingly, we modify the district court's order to reflect a dismissal of White's complaint without prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED