Filed: Mar. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7427 VIRGILIO PENALOZA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HUBBERT, Dr., Dentist at Piedmont Regional Jail, sued in personal capacity; GORDON, Doctor at Piedmont Regional Jail, sued in personal capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00565-REP) Submitted: February 3, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2015 B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7427 VIRGILIO PENALOZA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HUBBERT, Dr., Dentist at Piedmont Regional Jail, sued in personal capacity; GORDON, Doctor at Piedmont Regional Jail, sued in personal capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00565-REP) Submitted: February 3, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2015 Be..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7427
VIRGILIO PENALOZA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUBBERT, Dr., Dentist at Piedmont Regional Jail, sued in
personal capacity; GORDON, Doctor at Piedmont Regional Jail,
sued in personal capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00565-REP)
Submitted: February 3, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Virgilio Penaloza, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Virgilio Penaloza appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his action without prejudice. We have reviewed the
record and find no abuse of discretion. Shao v. Link Cargo
(Taiwan) Ltd.,
986 F.2d 700, 708 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating
standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
2