TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reginald Lee v. G.L. Woodard, Superintendent, Johnston Correctional Center

Lee v. G.L. Woodard, 36 F.3d 1093 (4th Cir. 1994)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 4, 1994
Docket
No. 94-6463
Citations
36 F.3d 10931994 WL 5435141994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33977
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

36 F.3d 1093

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Reginald LEE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. G.L. WOODARD, Superintendent, Johnston Correctional Center, Defendant Appellee.

No. 94-6463.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 25, 1994. Decided Oct. 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-93-737-BR)

Reginald Lee, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before RUSSELL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 (d) (1988). Appellant alleged that he had not been able to "carry-on" his case because of lack of access to legal materials and copying and mail services. To state a denial of access to courts claim, a prisoner must allege an actual injury or specific harm which has resulted from the denial. Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1383 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 62 U.S.L.W. 3319 (U.S.1992). Here, Appellant failed to allege an actual injury or harm resulting from the alleged deprivations. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed his claims. Lee v. Woodard, No. CA-93-737-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 1994). Because Appellant may be able to particularize his complaint to allege actual injury or specific harm, however, we affirm the district court's order as modified to reflect dismissal without prejudice to Appellant's ability to refile his claims. 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.

2

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375 (4th Cir. 1993) 575
Rickman v. Deere & Co., 36 F.3d 1093 (4th Cir. 1994) 37

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list