Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06601/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06601-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6601

KIRK LEE LONEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COFFEY, I.S.M.; MOORE, C.C.M.; 

CROOMES, Mail Clerk; HARRELL WATTS; WADE MOORE; JOHN DOE; 

JANE DOE; STEWART, Mail Clerk; A. W. ENGEL; TABOR, Unit 

Manager; CUFFEE, Counselor; K. BLANKENSHIFT, Correctional 

Officer; LIEUTENANT BROE; MCDONALD, Dentist; ROACHE, 

Dentist; MCDOUGAL, Dental Assistant; PATRICIA STANSBERRY, 

Warden; BROWN, Case Manager,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

UNKNOWN STAFF FOR F.C.C. PETERSBURG MEDIUM; UNKNOWN 

OFFICIALS FOR PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA U.S.P.S., sued in their 

individual capacities,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00845-REP)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6601 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Kirk L. Loney, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6601 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Kirk L. Loney appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680 (2012). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Loney v. United States, No. 3:11–cv–

00845–REP (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 18, 2015; entered Feb. 19, 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

Appeal: 15-6601 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3