Ricardo Gutierrez Depineres v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 1988

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7917
RICARDO GUTIERREZ DEPINERES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; JAMES BROWN, Chaplain;
MR. CHOATE, Assistant Warden Operations;
MELVIN LEE, Contract Administrator,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-248-5-BO)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 24, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ricardo Gutierrez DePineres, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Graves
Barr, Jr., Shepherd Dean Wainger, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, Norfolk,
Virginia; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

1DePineres explained in a motion filed on July 5, 2002, that,
although he sought relief from the individual Defendants, he named
Rivers Correctional Institution in his prayer for relief based on
his belief that the corporation would pay any judgments entered
against its employees for civil rights violations.
2This appeal is timely under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988), and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Gutierrez DePineres appeals from the district
court’s orders denying relief on his civil rights complaint and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Construing this pro se
complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), we
find that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, DePineres
did seek monetary damages from Defendants Scott, Brown, and Choate
for their alleged religious discrimination and violations of his
First Amendment right by denying him Kosher meals. 1 Accordingly,
we vacate that portion of the district court’s order dismissing
this claim as moot and remand for further proceedings. We deny the
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal 2 and affirm the district
court’s order in all other respects for the reasons stated by the
district court. See DePineres v. Scott, No. CA-02-248-5-BO
(E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --