Poston v. Shappert, No. 06-8052 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8052 SHAUN AUTALEON POSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GRETCHEN C. F. SHAPPERT; JIM PENDERGRAPH; MARK P. FOSTER, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00142) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 30, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaun Autaleon Poston, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shaun Autaleon Poston appeals the district court s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. As found by the district court, Poston s complaint raises challenges to his underlying criminal conviction. has made expunged, no showing declared that invalid his by conviction a state has court, Because Poston been or reversed, called into question by a federal court s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, we find that his claims are not cognizable under § 1983 or under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (2000). See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486- 87 (1994); Stephenson v. Reno, 28 F.3d 26, 26-27 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1994 (per curiam) (applying holding in Heck to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim). To the extent that Poston s claims against the federal defendants could be construed as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), we find that these claims are also barred by the rationale set forth by the Supreme Court in Heck. See Stephenson, 28 F.3d at 27. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.