Court Opinion

ID: 9390164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:32.897135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.432320
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7155      Doc: 16         Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7155

        BON ALEXANDER STROUPE,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        STEVE WHISNANT, Burke County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity;
        GARY KISER, Reception, Burke County Supervisor, in his individual and official
        capacity; TAYLOR HAWKINS, Reception, Programmer/Encryptor, in his
        individual and official capacity; MICHAEL DAVID ANDERSON, Lt. Burke
        County Sheriff's Dept., Captain Burke County Jail, in his individual and official
        capacity,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00088-MR)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bon Alexander Stroupe, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7155      Doc: 16         Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Bon Alexander Stroupe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Stroupe v. Whisnant, No.

        1:22-cv-00088-MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2022). 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

                                                    2