Benjamin Joyner v. Sharon Patterson, No. 14-7432 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7432 BENJAMIN A. JOYNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHARON PATTERSON, disciplinary hearing officer; MIKE MCCALL, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; LINDA JOHNSON, Inmate Grievance Coordinator; ANN HALLMAN, Chief Inmate Grievance Branch; B. REAMES, Classification Case Manager; MS. MCNAIR, Administrative Segregation Case Manager; WILLIAM R. BYARS, Agency Director; JAMES E. SLEIGH, Division Director of Operations; JAMES C. DEAN, Major of Security; OFFICER LOCKLEAR, Security; SARGEANT ROACH, Security; LIEUTENANT MILES, Security; ASSOCIATE WARDEN S. NOLAN. All defendants except the Agency director is being sued in their individual capacities. William R. Byars is being sued in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:13-cv-02675-DCN) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Anthony Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin accepting A. the dismissing his Joyner appeals recommendation 42 U.S.C. the of district the § 1983 magistrate (2012) order judge complaint prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). the record and find no reversible error. court’s and without We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Joyner v. Patterson, No. 0:13-cv-02675-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2014). dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.