Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr v. OFFICER TAYLOR, Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6442
STANLEY EARL CORBETT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER TAYLOR, Correctional Officer at
Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in
individual and official capacity; OFFICER
STAPLETON, Correctional Officer at Foothills
Correctional Institution, sued in individual
and official capacity; OFFICER HOUSTON,
Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional
Institution, sued individual and official
capacity; OFFICER FISHER, Correctional Officer
at Foothills Correctional Institution, sued in
individual and official capacity; OFFICER
ROLAND, Correctional Officer at Foothills
Correctional Institution, sued in individual
and official capacity; OFFICER PATTERSON,
Correctional Officer at Foothills Correctional
Institution sued, in individual and official
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00229)
Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 11, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Stanley E. Corbett, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find that the undisputed facts do not
support an inference that the officers’ use of force was malicious
or wanton. Because we find as a matter of law that their conduct
does not satisfy the subjective requirement of an Eighth Amendment
violation, we do not reach the objective requirement. See
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-8 (1992). Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court for that reason. See
Corbett v. Taylor, No. 1:06-cv-00229 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2007). We
deny Corbett’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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

-- 3 of 3 --