# Johnie B. Erwin v. Frank L. Perry

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 6, 2018 · 710 F. App'x 596

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4242691

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnie B. ERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; W. David Guice; Larry Dunston; Betty Brown, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 6, 2018
- **Citations:** 710 F. App'x 596
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Thacker, Harris
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4242691

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6774

JOHNIE B. ERWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY; W. DAVID GUICE; LARRY DUNSTON; BETTY BROWN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03136-H)

Submitted: November 30, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnie B. Erwin, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Johnie B. Erwin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint

asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Erwin v. Perry, No. 5:14-ct-03136-H (E.D.N.C. June 8,

2017). 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.

AFFIRMED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4242691. Public record. Not legal advice.