Ronald McClary v. Joseph Lightsey, No. 19-6901 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6901 RONALD MCCLARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY; PAMELA HENDERSON; MITCHELL LAWSON; HERIBERTO SIERRA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03052-BO) Submitted: October 29, 2019 Decided: November 6, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moyers, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald McClary appeals the district court’s orders and judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. The district court dismissed McClary’s claims against Dr. Lightsey based on res judicata and McClary’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. On appeal, McClary does not challenge those findings in his informal brief. Accordingly, because our review is limited to issues raised in the informal brief, we will dismiss the appeal in part. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that “our review is limited to issues preserved in [the informal] brief.”). We have reviewed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the remaining defendants and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. McClary v. Lightsey, No. 5:16-ct-03052-BO (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2018; June 18, 2019). 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. DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 2
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.
