Jonathan Henslee v. Mike Slagle

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-6353
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6353 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6353

JONATHAN LEIGH HENSLEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MIKE SLAGLE, Warden of Mountain View Correctional Institution, in their official capacity; NURSE MELTON, Lead Nurse, Mountain View Correctional Institution, in their individual capacity; NURSE HUGHES, Sickcall Nurse, North Carolina Department of Corrections, in their individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00132-MR)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Leigh Henslee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6353 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Leigh Henslee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Turning first to Henslee’s claims for

damages against the two nurses, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order. Henslee v. Slagle,

No. 1:22-cv-00132-MR (W.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2023).

As for Henslee’s claims against the warden, while his case was pending in this court,

Henslee was transferred to another prison. Because Henslee sought only injunctive relief

against the warden, we conclude that his claims against the warden have been rendered

moot by his transfer. Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009).

This court’s “customary practice when a case is rendered moot on appeal is to vacate

the moot aspects of the lower court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss.”

Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 14 F.4th 322, 327

(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we vacate the district

court’s order to the extent that it dismissed the claims against the warden under

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and remand for the district court to dismiss those claims as moot.

We deny Henslee’s motion for appointment of 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED