Ivory Dickerson v. Harlon Costner, No. 10-7482 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7482 IVORY D. DICKERSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. HARLON E. COSTNER, U.S. Marshal, individually and in his official capacity; DON JOHNSON, Deputy U.S. Marshal, individually and in his official capacity; DENNIS A. WILLIAMSON, U.S. Marshal, individually and in his official capacity; DOUGLAS CANNON, Assistant U.S. Attorney, individually and in his official capacity; ROGER HANDBERG, Assistant U.S. Attorney, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cv-00931-WO-WWD) Submitted: January 26, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivory D. Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ivory D. Dickerson appeals the district court s order accepting dismissing the his recommendation 42 U.S.C. of § 1983 the magistrate (2006) judge complaint and under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). The PLRA requires a district court to engage in a preliminary screening of any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental governmental complaint, entity entity. or any The portion or an court officer or must . [thereof, . employee . that] of dismiss is a the frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 394 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the We have Accordingly, district court. Dickerson v. Costner, No. 1:09-cv-00931-WO-WWD (M.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2010). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.