UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7428

KAYIE SHAUNE DEVORE WRIGHT, a/k/a Kayie Shaune Wright,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER RICH, Director of Security Risk Group, in official and supervisory capacities; HERBERT CORPENING, (“Hebert Corperning”) Superintendent/Warden of Marion Correctional Institution, in official, individual and supervisory capacities; DONALD WATKINS, Assistant Superintendent of Marion Correctional Institution, in official, individual, and supervisory capacities; DAVID COTHERIN, Assistant Superintendent of Programs, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; JULIA JENKINS, Program Director of RDU, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; GREGORY SWINK, Program Director of RDU, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; ROBERT T. BARKER, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, in official and individual capacities; MURPHY, Psychiatrist, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; ADAM HERGENROTHER, S.R.G. in official and individual capacities; NICHOLS, “[J.] Nichols” S.R.G., in official and individual capacities; TODD E. ISHEE, Director of Prisons, in official and supervisory capacities; LONG, [Captain] of S.R.G., in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; SURRAT, Lieutenant of S.R.G., in individual, official, and supervisory capacities; TAYLOR, Sergeant of S.R.G, in individual and official capacities; CHRISTOPHER CURTIS, Assistant Unit Manager, in individual, official, and supervisory capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00146-FDW)

Submitted: February 9, 2021 Decided: February 19, 2021 Before KING, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kayie Shaune DeVore Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Kayie Shaune DeVore Wright appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his

complaint under

(e)(2)(B), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. * Wright v. United

States, No. 1:19-cv-00146-FDW (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6 & June 2, 2020). 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

* Even if we consider Wright’s challenge to prison strip searches as arising under the Eighth Amendment, rather than the Fourth Amendment, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

3