Filed: Nov. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7292 TEHGRAIN JAMAL JONES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE H. PURKEY, Commonwealth of VA; LOUIS A. SHERMAN, Judge; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00306-HEH) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 19, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7292 TEHGRAIN JAMAL JONES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE H. PURKEY, Commonwealth of VA; LOUIS A. SHERMAN, Judge; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00306-HEH) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 19, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7292 TEHGRAIN JAMAL JONES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE H. PURKEY, Commonwealth of VA; LOUIS A. SHERMAN, Judge; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00306-HEH) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 19, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tehgrain Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tehgrain Jamal Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Purkey, No. 3:12-cv-00306-HEH (E.D. Va. July 25, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
