Court Opinion

ID: 9397902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:46.667217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.593101
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6914      Doc: 14          Filed: 05/25/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6914

        TERRY K. OFORI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the VDOC; MR. WENDELL W. PIXLEY,
        Warden of SIISP; MR. M. A. BAILEY, Assistant Warden of SIISP; JONES, Major
        or Chief of Security for SIISP; T. BIRCKHEAD, Operations Manager at SIISP; MR.
        W. BROWN, Institutional Hearings Office (IHO) at SIISP; JOHN F. MILLS, Unit
        Manager at SIISP; MR. G. T. PUGH, Unit Manager at SIISP; MR. B. PERKINS,
        Unit Manager at SIISP; MS. A. EVANS, C/O at SIISP,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-00242-RAJ-LRL)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terry K. Ofori, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6914      Doc: 14         Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terry K. Ofori appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend the

        complaint in his previously dismissed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Ofori

        v. Clarke, No. 2:17-cv-00242-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. July 7, 2022). 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