Jonathan Leigh Henslee v. MIKE SLAGLE, Warden of Mountain View Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6353
JONATHAN LEIGH HENSLEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MIKE SLAGLE, Warden of Mountain View Correctional Institution, in their official
capacity; NURSE MELTON, Lead Nurse, Mountain View Correctional Institution,
in their individual capacity; NURSE HUGHES, Sickcall Nurse, North Carolina
Department of Corrections, in their individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00132-MR)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Leigh Henslee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Leigh Henslee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Turning first to Henslee’s claims for
damages against the two nurses, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order. Henslee v. Slagle,
No. 1:22-cv-00132-MR (W.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2023).
As for Henslee’s claims against the warden, while his case was pending in this court,
Henslee was transferred to another prison. Because Henslee sought only injunctive relief
against the warden, we conclude that his claims against the warden have been rendered
moot by his transfer. Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009).
This court’s “customary practice when a case is rendered moot on appeal is to vacate
the moot aspects of the lower court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss.”
Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 14 F.4th 322, 327
(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we vacate the district
court’s order to the extent that it dismissed the claims against the warden under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and remand for the district court to dismiss those claims as moot.
We deny Henslee’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

-- 2 of 2 --