United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff s
pro se Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs motion
for extension of time to serve process on Defendants. (Doc.
is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina who, for all
relevant times, was incarcerated at Alexander Correctional
Institution ("ACI"). He filed this action on
December 22, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff has named FNU Perry, a Correctional Officer at ACI,
Susan White, the Superintendent of ACI, and Eric Dye, the
Assistant Superintendent of ACI, as Defendants. Plaintiffs
action against Defendants is based on the following factual
On 10-4-16 at [ACI] my personal property was taken without my
authorization to proceed in the actions, thereby committing
larceny and violating the 4th Amendment and Administrational
Due Process. Mr. Perry who is a [sic] officer did all the
above in the eyes of my peers and other co-workers, while Ms.
Susan White and Mr. Eric Dye allowed the evil actions without
Due Process of law or under the authority of law.
(Compl. 3, Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks compensation for his
property. (Compl. 5.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to
dismissal on the grounds that it is "frivolous or
malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
under § 1915 A the Court must conduct an initial review
and identify and dismiss the Complaint, or any portion of the
Complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The liberal
construction requirement, however, will not permit a district
court to ignore a plaintiffs clear failure to allege facts
which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law.
Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.. 901 F.2d 387
(4th Cir. 1990).
1983 provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may granted
under § 1983.
initial matter, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the
Fourth Amendment because, as an incarcerated state prisoner,
he has no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth
Amendment. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530
(1984) (holding that prison inmates do not have reasonable
expectations of privacy within prison cognizable under the
Fourth Amendment). In ...