U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2014

Frankie LordMaster v. G. Hinkle

Frankie LordMaster v. G. Hinkle
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 22, 2014

Frankie LordMaster v. G. Hinkle

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7074

FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, f/k/a Jason Robert Goldader, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. G. HINKLE, Regional Director; MR. JENNINGS, Ex-Warden of Augusta Correctional Center; BUILDING C/D SERGEANT; BUILDING C/D LIEUTENANT; LT. WHEELER; LINKENHOLKER; SHIFFLET, a/k/a Shiflett, Defendants – Appellees, and AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER PERSONNEL; UNKNOWN; VIRGINIA D.O.C. AGENTS; OTHER AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT; COMMON FARE: DEFENDANTS AT ACC; LAW LIBRARY: DEFENDANTS AT ACC; PERSONAL SAFETY: DEFENDANTS AT ACC PERSONNEL; DISEMMINATION: DEFENDANTS AT OR OUTSIDE ACC; RETALIATION: DEFENDANTS AT ACC, Cell Search or resultant; RETALIATION: DEFENDANTS AT OR OUTSIDE ACC, Transfer or resultants, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:13-cv-00506-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Jae LordMaster, Appellant Pro Se. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Frankie Jae LordMaster appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to some Defendants on LordMaster’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and dismissing without prejudice the claims against the remaining Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny LordMaster’s pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. LordMaster v. Hinkle, No. 7:13-cv-00506-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. July 9, 2014). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.