Court Opinion

ID: 9365162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:58.418226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.534865
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7206      Doc: 11         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7206

        ALVIN CARTER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections; MR. BRECKON,
        LVCC Facility Administrator; MS. WALKER, LVCC Food Service Supervisor;
        MS. GARRETT, LVCC Food Service Supervisor,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00081-CMH-TCB)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alvin Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7206      Doc: 11         Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alvin Carter appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his

        amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern no

        reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Carter v. Clarke,

        1:20-cv-00081-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 25, 2022 & entered Aug. 29, 2022). We

        also deny Carter’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

               *
                 Carter’s informal brief and supplemental informal brief challenge only the district
        court’s dismissal of his procedural due process claim. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d
        170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). To the extent that Carter’s supplemental informal brief seeks to
        raise a new claim for relief, we decline to consider that claim. See Pornomo v. United
        States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016).

                                                     2