UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6889
MICHAEL ANTHONY DILWORTH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
H. CORPENING, Administrator at Marion Correctional
Institution; H. TATE, Sergeant at Marion Correctional
Institution; M. R. CRIDER, Disciplinary Hearing Officer at
Marion Correctional Institution; D. FREEMAN, Unit Manager
at Marion Correctional Institution; E. B. THOMAS, Chief
Disciplinary Hearing Officer at North Carolina Department
of Public Safety,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00036-FDW)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Dilworth, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Dilworth appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Dilworth’s
complaint challenged a prison disciplinary conviction that
resulted in the loss of good time credits, alleged that
Defendant Freeman violated his rights under the First Amendment,
and sought damages and injunctive relief. Dilworth confines his
appeal to the dismissal of his challenge to his prison
disciplinary conviction.
The district court properly dismissed the claim because it
was not cognizable under § 1983 in the absence of a showing that
the disciplinary conviction supporting the revocation of good
time credits has been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok,
520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir.
2002) (applying Heck to claims for injunctive relief),
abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct.
1289 (2011). A prisoner may challenge the revocation of good
time credits only by way of habeas corpus. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Accordingly, we modify the
district court’s order to reflect that Dilworth’s challenge to
the revocation of good time credits is dismissed without
prejudice to his right to reassert his challenge in a habeas
action and affirm the order as modified. See Dilworth v.
2
Corpening, No. 1:15-cv-00036-FDW (W.D.N.C. May 29, 2015). 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 AS MODIFIED
3