Leslie J. Travis v. North Carolina Department of Corrections Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. Michael Easley, 37 F.3d 1495, 4th Cir. (1994)
Leslie J. Travis v. North Carolina Department of Corrections Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. Michael Easley, 37 F.3d 1495, 4th Cir. (1994)
3d 1495
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished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of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-9411-5)
Leslie J. Travis, appellant pro se.
E.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order summarily dismissing his 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. Our review of the record and the district
court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. We note, however,
that Appellant also included two claims concerning the conditions of his
confinement in his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition. Appellant made conclusory
allegations that the prison is overcrowded and that he is deprived of meaningful
access to courts. The district court failed to separately consider these claims
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988). See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499
n. 14 (1973); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 72-73 (4th Cir.1983).
Appellant, however, did not allege any facts to support his claims or that he
suffered any injury. Neither did Appellant demonstrate that he sought any relief
through administrative remedies concerning these claims. Accordingly, because
Appellant did not allege even a minimal level of factual support for these
claims, they were properly dismissed. See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 724
(4th Cir.1989).
2
For these reasons, we grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal and affirm
the district court's order dismissing Appellant's petition but modify it to reflect a
dismissal of both the 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 claims and the 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
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.*
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED