Court Opinion

ID: 9390160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:28.750472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.852489
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7246      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7246

        DEONTA JEROME HICKS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        JEFF KISER; C/O ROBINETTE; SHANNON FULLER, Assistant Warden; LT.
        GILBERT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:21-cv-00465-RSB)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Deonta Jerome Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7246      Doc: 10        Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Deonta Jerome Hicks, a Virginia inmate, appeals the magistrate judge’s order ∗

        dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record de novo and

        identified no error in the magistrate judge granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

        motion to dismiss. See Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, 299 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating

        standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate

        judge’s order. Hicks v. Kiser, No. 7:21-cv-00465-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2022). 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

              ∗
                 Despite Hicks’ suggestion to the contrary, our review of the record confirms that
        the parties consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
        § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

                                                    2