Court Opinion

ID: 9957251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:31.112434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:14.517282
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6904      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6904

        MARCUS DEVAN HUNTER,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADULT CORRECTION; TODD
        ISHEE; EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR.; BRANDESHAWN HARRIS; COREY
        JUNKER; DR. ARTHUR CAMPBELL; TERRY CATLETT; VALERIE
        LANGLEY; ABHAY AGARWAL; SARAH COBB; JOSH PANTER;
        CHARLOTTE WILLIAMS; ELTON AMES; CENTRAL PRISON; DR. BRIAN
        SHEITMAN,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03087-BO-RJ)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcus Devan Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6904      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marcus Devan Hunter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and

        find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hunter v. N.C.

        Dep’t of Adult Corr., No. 5:23-ct-03087-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2023). We deny

        Hunter’s motion to amend his informal brief to the extent he seeks de novo review in

        No. 23-1797, a case in which we dismissed Hunter’s petition for a writ of mandamus for

        failure to prosecute.   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