Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6828 PERNELL DAVIS PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL L. WADE, Sheriff, Henrico County Jail Department; JOHN DOE(S); JANE DOE(S), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cv-00016-JAG) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6828 PERNELL DAVIS PITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL L. WADE, Sheriff, Henrico County Jail Department; JOHN DOE(S); JANE DOE(S), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cv-00016-JAG) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6828
PERNELL DAVIS PITTMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL L. WADE, Sheriff, Henrico County Jail Department;
JOHN DOE(S); JANE DOE(S),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00016-JAG)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pernell Davis Pittman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pernell Davis Pittman appeals the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Pittman v. Wade, No.
3:14-cv-00016-JAG (E.D. Va. May 15, 2014). 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