Court Opinion

ID: 9375232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:41.641995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.138840
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6000      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6000

        JAMES CODY CAMPBELL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        RAPPAHANOCK REGIONAL JAIL,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01376-TSE-LRV)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Cody Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6000       Doc: 9         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               James Cody Campbell appeals the district court’s order dismissing without

        prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to notify the court of a change in his

        address. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to

        prosecute. See Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 2019). Our review of the

        record reveals that, although the district court’s December 5, 2022, order was returned

        without delivery to Campbell, it does not appear that Campbell failed to provide the court

        with his correct, current address. The record does not reveal why the district court’s order

        was returned as undeliverable, but Campbell has since sent and received documents at the

        mailing address he provided in his complaint, and maintains that his address did not

        change. Because it is not clear that Campbell failed to update his address with the court,

        we conclude that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion. See Scott v. Fam. Dollar

        Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 112 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that a “district court abuses its

        discretion by resting its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact” (internal

        quotation marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing Campbell’s complaint

        and remand for further proceedings. 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.

                                                                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      2