UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 9

- 7835

ROBERT W. DOUGHERTY

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

DANA LAWHORNE, Sheriff, Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SCHULER, Chief Deputy (Major), Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SERGEANT HALL, Alexandria Adult Detention Center; SERGEANT MENSAH, Alexandria Adult Detention Center (Law Library); DEPUTY ANDERSON , Alexandria Adult Detention Center (Mailroom); IVAN T. GILMORE, Warden, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; DONALD GOURDINE, Inst. Program Dir. and Inst. Classification, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; MAJOR M. BRYANT, Chief of Security and Institutional Revi ew Officer (Discipline), Coffe e wood Correctional Center; C. A. WARD, Chief of Security and Institutional Review Officer (Discipline), Coffe e wood Correctional Center; ANITA B. LONG, (Captain) Unit Manager Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CAPTAIN S. A. JONES, Watch Commander, Grievance Hearing Officer, and Institutional Review

- Discipline; LIEUTENANT BRICE, Unit Lieutenant (retired), Coffe e wood Correctional Center; L. P. JONES, (Lieutenant) Unit Manager, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT R. GALLAGHER, Unit Lieutenant, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT M. S. MILLER, Custody, Shift Supervisor, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; SERGEANT R. LEWIS, Custody, Hearing Officer,
Coffe e wood Correctional Center; D. P. SACRA, Sergeant, Custody, Coffe e wood
Cor rectional Center; SERGEANT MONROE, Custody, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CORPORAL WALTER, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CORPORAL JENKINS, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CORPORAL ROCHES, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CORPORAL HENSLEY, Coffe e wood Cor rectional Center; CORPORAL POWELL, Former Mail Room Officer, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CORPORAL NEWCOMB, Coffe e wood Correctional Center; CORPORAL HEFRIGHT, Coffeewood Correctional Center; CORPORAL F. O. ALAS

BARRIENTOS, Coffeewood Correctional Center; T. L. CRICKEMBERGER, Hearing Officer (of record), Coffeewood Correctional Center; M.S. KIMBERLY TUCKER, Grievance Officer, Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. P. C.2 ZWIGART, Secretary to Warden Gilmore, Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. PEGGY TATRO, Administrator, Mediko Correctional Healthcare (contracted provider), Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. S. COOPER, Treatment and Law Library, Coffeewood Correctional Center; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations, Virginia De partment of Corrections; WENDY S. HOBBS, Regional Administrator Grievances, Virginia Department of Corrections; MARCUS M. HODGES, Regional Administrator, Virginia Department of Corrections; KAREN L. STAPLETON, Offender Discipline Manager, Virginia Departme nt of Corrections; KAREN D. BROWN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN W. MORTON, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; HELEN W. HALL

- GREEN, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; IRIS STALLWORTH, District 29

- Fairfax, Virginia Parole Board; MINIAR F. STONE, Parole Board Member, Virginia Parole Board; B. J. HICE, Hearing Officer, Virginia Parole Board; SERGEANT D. P. HAPPE, Custody, Coffeewood Correctional Center

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O ’ Grady , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv

- 00302

- LO

- IDD )

Submitted : April 3, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert W. Dougherty , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Robert W. Dougherty appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for

failing to comply with a court order . 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. Dougherty v

. Lawhorne , No. 1:17

- cv

- 00302

- LO

IDD (E.D. Va

. f iled Dec. 4, 2019 & entered Dec. 6, 2019 ) . 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