U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2023

Steven Prentice v. Gregory Haynes

Steven Prentice v. Gregory Haynes
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 3, 2023

Steven Prentice v. Gregory Haynes

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6243 Doc: 33 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6243

STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. GREGORY DELAND HAYNES; PHILLIP TOLMAN; DR. CLIFFORD CURTIS; ABHAY AGARWAL; DR. CHARLES A. LEWIS; EDDIE M.

BUFFALOE, JR., Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; TERRI CATLETT; GEORGE BAIDEN; LORI A. WISHART, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03150-D)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6243 Doc: 33 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Steven Dixon Prentice, Appellant Pro Se. John David Kocher, SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jeffrey D. Keister, MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, WALKER, ALLEN, GRICE, AMMONS, FOY, KLICK & MCCULLOUGH, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jennifer Dotson Maldonado, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jonathan Edgar Hall, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Bettina Jimille Roberts, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6243 Doc: 33 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Steven Dixon Prentice, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Prentice v. Haynes, No. 5:20-ct-03150-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2023). 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.