Court Opinion

ID: 9957261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:44.957997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:14.829394
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7021      Doc: 9         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7021

        CHRISTOPHER SHAWN FRIONE,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        SERGEANT BEST; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HOWELL; CORRECTIONAL
        OFFICER   CARMON;     CORRECTIONAL    OFFICER   EDWARDS;
        CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JACKSON,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-ct-03125-M)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher Shawn Frione, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7021      Doc: 9        Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Christopher Shawn Frione appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        spoilation sanctions and the order denying his motion for injunctive relief and granting

        summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.

        Frione v. Best, No. 5:21-ct-03125-M (E.D.N.C. Jan. 3, 2023; Sept. 28, 2023). 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