Court Opinion

ID: 9411782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 21:00:47.323338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:12.844831
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1718      Doc: 16         Filed: 07/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1718

        WOODROW R. JACKSON, SR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HON. DONALD C. BLESSING; LYNETTE COE; MACHELLE EPPES; J.
        DUNCAN PITCHFORD; JASON S. MIYARES; JOHN W. DANIEL, II; THOMAS
        (Tommy) W. LAWSON,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00772-DJN)

        Submitted: May 19, 2023                                           Decided: July 26, 2023

        Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Woodrow R. Jackson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John P. O’Herron, THOMPSON
        MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS,
        RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1718      Doc: 16         Filed: 07/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Woodrow R. Jackson, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without

        prejudice his civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the

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

        Jackson v. Blessing, No. 3:21-cv-00772-DJN (E.D. Va. June 13, 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