Alvin Carter v. Harold Clarke

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 20, 2023
Docket22-7206
StatusUnpublished

This text of Alvin Carter v. Harold Clarke (Alvin Carter v. Harold Clarke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alvin Carter v. Harold Clarke, (4th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Samuel Jackson v. Joseph Lightsey
775 F.3d 170 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)
Jonatan Pornomo v. United States
814 F.3d 681 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alvin Carter v. Harold Clarke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvin-carter-v-harold-clarke-ca4-2023.