Court Opinion

ID: 9397285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:16.997425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.018452
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6167      Doc: 6          Filed: 05/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6167

        LARRY BLAKNEY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT
        DIVISION OF HARTSVILLE; FMC BUTNER; WARDEN T. SCARANTINO;
        ALAN E. DUBOIS; LOGAN GRADDY,

                             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. (5:22-ct-03094-M)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry Blakney, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6167         Doc: 6     Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Larry Blakney appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C.

        § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) his civil action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal

        Tort Claims Act and denying as moot his motion to appoint a guardian ad litem. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

        stated by the district court. Blakney v. United States, No. 5:22-ct-03094-M (E.D.N.C.

        Feb. 9, 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