Larry Brandon Moore v. George T. Solomon , 688 F. App'x 196 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7653
    LARRY BRANDON MOORE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    GEORGE T. SOLOMON, Director of N.C.D.P.S., D.A.C., individually and in their
    official capacity; PECK TAYLOR, Assistant Superintendent of Custody and
    Operations and Acting Superintendent at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official
    capacity; MONICA BOND, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer (D.H.O.) of
    N.C.D.P.S., individually and in their official capacity; RANDY S. MULL, D.H.O.,
    individually and in their official capacity; WOODRING, Inmate Work Supervisor
    at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
    at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00238-FDW)
    Submitted: April 25, 2017                                          Decided: May 3, 2017
    Before DIAZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Brandon Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Brandon Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the
    record and find no reversible error.     Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion for
    appointment of counsel and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
    court. * Moore v. Solomon, No. 1:16-cv-00238-FDW (W.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2016). 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
    *
    Contrary to the district court’s finding, Moore did allege that he was placed in
    segregation prior to the prison disciplinary hearing and was punished after the hearing.
    However, Moore received all the process he was due at that hearing, and his Thirteenth
    Amendment claim is meritless. See Newell v. Davis, 
    563 F.2d 123
    , 124 (4th Cir. 1977).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7653

Citation Numbers: 688 F. App'x 196

Filed Date: 5/5/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023