Court Opinion

ID: 991424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:36:16.145277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:04.158203
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LARRY DONNELL GAITHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 96-6406

J. C. SMITH; JOE L. PRATT,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
(CA-96-132-5-BR)

Submitted: October 29, 1996

Decided: January 27, 1997

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Larry Donnell Gaither, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform
Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discre-
tion. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court. Gaither v. Smith, No. CA-96-132-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4,
1996). To the extent that Appellant raises claims not addressed by the
district court, we find his claims meritless.

First, to the extent Appellant's claim of retaliation for filing a
prison grievance states a First Amendment violation, his claim is
without merit. Appellant's allegations that Appellee Smith repri-
manded him and threatened him with future lock-up in retaliation for
exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances are legally
insufficient to meet the necessary "adverse impact" requirement. See
ACLU v. Wicomico County, 999 F.2d 780, 786 n.6 (4th Cir. 1993).

Second, to the extent that Appellant alleged that Appellee Pratt vio-
lated his civil rights by going along with Appellee Smith, his claim
is without merit. Pratt cannot be held vicariously liable for Smith's
actions because individuals cannot be sued under§ 1983 by virtue of
respondeat superior. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir.
1985). Furthermore, since Pratt did not directly or in a supervisory
capacity deprive Gaither of any federally protected right, Pratt cannot
be held individually liable under § 1983 based on his supervisory
capacity.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2