Case ID: f-appx_600/html/0891-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin SNODGRASS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Uhuru Sekou Obataiye-Allah, Plaintiff, v. Harold W. CLARK, Director, DOC; Gerald K. Washington, Regional Director; R. Mathena, Warden; John Walrath, Assistant Warden; Shortridge, Operations Officer; J. Gallihar, Major; J. McQueen, Investigator; CCS, Central Classification Services; Swinney, Unit Manager; Kilbourne, Unit Manager; Sergeant Hall, Sergeant; Sergeant Ingle; L.T. Mullins, Lieutenant; Payne, Lieutenant; J. Messer, Grievance Coordinator; R. Mullins, Grievance Coordinator; J. Owens, Property; Vanover, Property; I.H.O. L. Mullins, Hearings Officer; Sergeant Sykes, Sergeant; c/o R. Brown; c/o Vanover; c/o Carter; c/o Messer; c/o Officer Messer; c/o Sheppard; c/o Dupie; c/o Sluss; c/o Akers; c/o Gibson; John Does; Jane Does; L.T. Lambert, Lieutenant; Lieutenant Blevins; Lieutenant Lyle; Sergeant Hill; Younce, Unit Manager; Sergeant Barton; Sergeant Miller, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-7671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 13, 2015.
    Decided: April 22, 2015.
    Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.,

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Snodgrass, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders (1) dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order; and (2) denying his motions for reconsideration and appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Snodgrass v. Clark, No. 7:14-cv-00257-GEC (W.D.Va. July 1 & Aug. 11, 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.