Opinion
21-6610
10-22-2021
STEVE LEE WALDEN MENIUS, a/k/a Radio Shack, a/k/a Mr. Fix-It, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GASTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in its individual and official capacities; MR. GORDON MCBRIDE, a private attorney of Hartsville, SC, Darlington County, in his individual and official capacities; E. FLYNN MENIUS, JR., the estate of, in its individual capacity; BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, Pee Dee Area Council, Inc., Florence, SC, in its individual and official capacities; CITY OF HARTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA'S DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, in its individual and official capacities; DR. MICHAEL FREIDMAN, South Carolina State Forensic Psychologist, in his individual and official capacities; JOHN DOE, Plaintiff's guardian at time of his adoption, in his individual and official capacities; CITY OF FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA, in its individual and official capacities; DR. DELMAR H. WILSON, Director, in his individual and official capacities; EUGENE J. JONES, Scout Executive, April 21st 1968, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
Steve Lee Walden Menius, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 19, 2021.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:20-cv-00043-MR)
Steve Lee Walden Menius, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Steve Lee Walden Menius appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying his motion to amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Menius v. Gaston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Serv., No. 3:20-cv-00043-MR (W.D. N.C. Apr. 1, 2021). We deny Menius' motion to appoint counsel and his motion to add or amend the caption and 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